Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problems associated with assisted conception can be clinical, ethical, or psychological. This article covers medical problems (such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and ectopic pregnancy), ethical questions that arise from situations such as the creation of surplus embryos, and difficult decisions that have to be made, such as when to advise a couple to stop treatment. View this table: Presentation of OHSS OHSS is arguably the most serious risk of treatment with gonadotrophins. It is not clear why OHSS occurs, although it is particularly severe with the use of gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogues and polycystic ovary syndrome. It generally develops if the patient has had an excessive response to gonadotrophins and has produced a large number (20 or more) follicles with its associatedexcessive rise in oestrogen production. OHSS occurs after exogenous human chorionic gonadotrophin has been administered, or when human chorionic gonadotrophin rises endogenously after a treatment cycle has been successful and an embryo has implanted. OHSS presents with substantial enlargement of the ovaries, which are filled with enlarging follicles (despite drainage at the time of egg collection) causing abdominal pain, distension, and extravascular fluid extravasation, which results in ascites and haemoconcentration. In the severest OHSS pleural effusions may develop and arterial or venous thromboses can occur because of hypercoagulability. View this table: Management of OHSS ![][1] Ultrasound scan showing an enlarged ovary (10 cm x 6 cm) and fluid in the pouch of Douglas and the uterovesical pouch Superovulation regimens should be designed and monitored to minimise OHSS. However, because of its idiosyncratic nature, the syndrome cannot be avoided completely. Indeed, it can occur simply by using clomifene to induce ovulation in sensitive patients, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome. OHSS should be managed in a specialist hospital, preferably one with an in vitro fertilisation unit, where there will be the appropriate expertise to deal … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".