MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997479612 · doi:10.1530/rep-07-0328

Prostaglandins and the initiation of blastocyst implantation and decidualization

2007· review· en· W1997479612 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas G. Kennedy, Carolina Gillio‐Meina, Sen Han Phang

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDecidualizationBlastocystEndometriumTrophoblastVascular permeabilityProstaglandinBiologyAndrologyEmbryoCell biologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyPregnancyEmbryogenesisMedicineFetusPlacentaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of blastocyst implantation in mammals is remarkably variable, especially in the extent of trophoblast invasion of the endometrium. In most species studied, the earliest macroscopically identifiable sign of blastocyst implantation is an increase in endometrial vascular permeability in areas adjacent to the blastocysts. This is followed in species with invasive implantation by decidualization, again localized to areas adjacent to the blastocysts. In some species, the application of a stimulus to the endometrium can result in increased endometrial vascular permeability and decidualization. Based initially on studies utilizing inhibitors of prostaglandin (PG) synthesis and more recently on studies using the techniques of transgenics, considerable evidence has accumulated indicating that PGs have an important role in the early events of implantation and artificially induced decidualization. However, which PGs are involved remains controversial. There may be differences between species, and different PGs may be involved at different times.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations166
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductionSame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207