MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022369921 · doi:10.1159/000181319

Clinical Appreciation of LHRH Analogue Formulations

2008· article· en· W2022369921 on OpenAlex
A. Lemay

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHormone Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineHormoneEndometriosisUrinary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues administered by a continuous release system produce a more complete and constant inhibition of the pituitary-ovarian axis than do multiple, daily intranasal insufflations or a once daily subcutaneous injection. In the present study, results were too limited to make a valid comparison between the clinical efficacy of various formulations in the treatment of endometriosis. A slow-release formulation is more effective in inducing amenorrhoea, but also produces more frequent and more severe clinical symptoms of oestrogen deprivation. There is no significant change in serum cholesterol levels during 6 months of treatment with any of the formulations used. During LHRH analogue treatment, the increase in urinary excretion of calcium is related to the rate and degree of serum oestradiol inhibition but the loss in bone mineral content is small and reversible after cessation of treatment. Both short-term and long-term treatment with LHRH analogues is feasible.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.209 · 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