Emergency contraception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review current knowledge about emergency contraception (EC), including available options, their modes of action, efficacy, safety, and the effective provision of EC within a practice setting. OPTIONS: The combined estradiol-levonorgestrel (Yuzpe regimen) and the levonorgestrel-only regimen, as well as post-coital use of copper intrauterine devices, are reviewed. OUTCOMES: Efficacy in terms of reduction in risk of pregnancy, safety, and side effects of methods for EC and the effect of the means of access to EC on its appropriate use and the use of consistent contraception. EVIDENCE: Studies published in English between January 1998 and March 2010 were retrieved though searches of Medline and the Cochrane Database, using appropriate key words (emergency contraception, post-coital contraception, emergency contraceptive pills, post-coital copper IUD). Clinical guidelines and position papers developed by health or family planning organizations were also reviewed. VALUES: The studies reviewed were classified according to criteria described by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, and the recommendations for practice were ranked according to this classification (Table 1). BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: These guidelines are intended to help reduce unintended pregnancies by increasing awareness and appropriate use of EC. SPONSOR: The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".