Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anovulation exists in normally menstruating women. METHODS: In a database of 550 consecutive couples seeking pregnancy, results of the midluteal serum progesterone level analysis planned for 7 days before the onset of the next menses were examined in women with predictable cycles shorter than 35 days. RESULTS: Of the 550 couples seeking pregnancy, 410 of the female partners (74.5%) were eumenorrheic. Fifteen of these women (3.7%) had apparently anovulatory cycles with a progesterone lower than the normal ovulatory value of 15 nmol/L. Further examination showed that four of the 15 women (26.7%) had an isolated prolonged cycle, whereas an additional four (26.7%) failed to have their sample taken at an appropriate time. One (6.7%) had a low progesterone level that was normal in the subsequent cycle. Two patients (13.3%) were older than 40, both having elevated early follicular follicle-stimulating hormone levels. One patient (6.7%) conceived in the following menstrual cycle without further evaluation. The three remaining women (20%) showed consistently apparently anovulatory cycles. However, the levels were exclusively above the follicular range. CONCLUSION: Our findings cast doubt on the concept of anovulatory cycles in eumenorrheic women and suggest that further examination of the lower level of ovulatory progesterone may indeed be necessary.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".