MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Observation of pronuclei may not be an absolute indicator for fertilization in rescue intracytoplasmic sperm injection oocytes

2003· article· en· W2018843600 on OpenAlexaff
Ri‐Cheng Chian, Louise Lapensée, Simon Phillips, Seang Lin Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Medicine and Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionPronucleusAndrologyHuman fertilizationInseminationOocyte activationEmbryoEmbryo transferSpermOocyteBiologyEmbryogenesisGynecologyMedicineIn vitro fertilisationZygoteAnatomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case report describes a successful full‐term pregnancy and birth after the transfer of rescue intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) embryos derived from 1‐day‐old oocytes. A total of eight oocytes were retrieved and inseminated 3 h after collection. No oocytes were fertilized 16–18 h after insemination. A rescue ICSI was performed on the four metaphase II stage oocytes. At the regular time (16 h after ICSI) of examination for fertilization, there were no distinct two pronuclei (2PN) in the cytoplasm of any oocytes, but the culture of these oocytes led to the development of four two‐cell stage embryos 26 h after ICSI. Further culture of these four embryos showed development to a four‐cell stage the following day. The transfer of three embryos resulted in a full‐term pregnancy with the delivery of a pair of healthy twins. This result suggests that the observation of 2PN at the normal time of fertilization assessment may not appear to be an absolute indicator of fertilization in the case of rescue ICSI. (Reprod Med Biol 2003; 2 : 83–85)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive Medicine and BiologySame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207