MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982988098 · doi:10.1002/uog.6438

Use of ultrasound biomicroscopy to image human ovaries <i>in vitro</i>

2009· article· en· W1982988098 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Baerwald, S. Dauk, Rani Kanthan, Jaswant Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasound biomicroscopyUltrasoundMedicineHistologySalineFollicleNuclear medicineOphthalmologyPathologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that ultrasound biomicroscopy is an effective tool for imaging human ovaries in vitro. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of 11 women (mean age, 48.9 +/- 2.3 years; range, 40-65 years) undergoing unilateral or bilateral oophorectomy. Ovaries were obtained in the operating room and imaged in a cooled saline bath using conventional two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound. Follicles identified using conventional 2D ultrasound were then imaged in a cooled saline bath using ultrasound biomicroscopy. Ovaries were then placed in 10% neutral-buffered formaldehyde and transported to the Pathology Department for histological evaluation. Digital images of individually identified ovarian follicles using conventional ultrasound, ultrasound biomicroscopy and histology were obtained (n = 22). Thicknesses of the follicle wall, granulosa layer and theca interna layer were measured using standardized techniques. RESULTS: The imaging sensitivity, defined as the smallest follicle visualized, was greater using ultrasound biomicroscopy (0.33 +/- 0.07 mm) than it was using conventional ultrasound (1.5 +/- 0.21 mm; P < 0.0001). The mean follicle wall thickness was greater using conventional ultrasound (0.675 +/- 0.039 mm) compared with ultrasound biomicroscopy (0.254 +/- 0.017 mm), which in turn, was greater than that measured by histology (0.160 +/- 0.009 mm) (P < 0.0001). The mean granulosa and theca layer thickness measurements, respectively, were greater using ultrasound biomicroscopy (0.067 +/- 0.004 mm; 0.186 +/- 0.014 mm) compared with histology (0.034 +/- 0.002 mm; 0.126 +/- 0.008 mm) (P < or = 0.001). Protrusions from the follicle wall into the antrum, believed to represent cumulus-oocyte complexes, were visualized in five of 22 follicles using ultrasound biomicroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound biomicroscope was an effective tool to image human ovaries in vitro. Ultrasound biomicroscopy provided greater sensitivity and resolution for imaging ovarian follicles compared with conventional 2D ultrasonographic techniques.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207