MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1415812895

A successful pregnancy following 'double rescue' egg retrieval in a woman with Natural cycle IVF.

2014· article· en· W1415812895 on OpenAlexaff
Geeta Nargund, Stuart Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOocyteEmbryo transferAndrologyFollicular fluidIn vitro fertilisationHuman chorionic gonadotropinHuman fertilizationFollicular phaseIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionPregnancyBiologyGynecologyMedicineEmbryoEndocrinologyAnatomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case is reported of a patient with critically low anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) having successful 'rescue' oocyte retrieval in natural in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle 24 hours after the initial procedure had resulted in no oocyte being collected. Following administration of 10,000 units human chorionic hormone (hCG) a second retrieval was performed 24 hours after the first, producing one Metaphase-I oocyte. After in vitro maturation (IVM) over 4 hours in oocyte maturation medium, introcytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was performed. A subsequent transfer of a 2-cell embryo proceeded on day 2. A positive hCG was recorded 15 days after embryo transfer (ET), and a viable clinical pregnancy has been confirmed. We believe this is the first reported case of a successful egg collection following a prior failed follicle aspiration in Natural IVF cycle. Factors such as good peri-follicular flow and initial follicular fluid cell content are probably essential before attempting a repeat procedure. This report highlights the importance of rescue IVM when an immature oocyte is collected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→