MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057230498 · doi:10.1002/micr.22006

Restoration of fertility in oophorectomized rats after tubo‐ovarian transplantation

2002· article· en· W2057230498 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Wang, Kupa K. Bilolo, Shijie Qi, Dasheng Xu, Wenlei Jiang, Minh Diem Vu, Huifang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrosurgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIsograftTransplantationSurgeryAnastomosisOvaryUterusMicrosurgeryOffspringInferior vena cavaAortaPregnancyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved microsurgical techniques for en bloc vascularized adnexal isograft in the rat is described. The graft of the right ovary together with its fallopian tube and upper third of uterus was transplanted orthotopically with end-to-side anastomoses between the donor aortic segment and recipient aorta and between the donor vena cava segment and recipient inferior vena cava, with end-to-end anastomosis of the donor and recipient uterus in a syngeneic, bilaterally oophorectomized rat. All transplantations were successful in terms of immediate vascular patency rate (10/10, 100%). Evidence of resumed ovarian function was obtained in 9 out of 10 rats (9/10, 90.0%) by histological demonstration of the vaginal smear, in which pregnancies were achieved in six rats (6/10, 60.0%) and six litters of healthy offspring were delivered 9 weeks later after transplantation. These results suggest that microsurgical ovarian transplantation provide a new and potential experimental model for the study of fertility restoration in humans.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrosurgerySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207