Stimulated intra-uterine insemination is not a natural choice for the treatment of unexplained subfertility: Current best evidence for the advanced treatment of unexplained subfertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When conventional treatment of unexplained infertility has not been successful, the next choice lies between either gonadotrophin treatment with intrauterine insemination (FSH/IUI) and IVF. Cohort studies indicate that FSH/IUI is less effective while the cost per birth is higher with IVF. The relevant evidence should come from randomized controlled trials, but the results need to be recalculated for the outcome of greatest interest, a singleton live birth. Judged by this standard, FSH/IUI is statistically superior to no treatment, but the effect is small in couples with unexplained infertility. By the same standard, IVF is superior to FSH/IUI treatment, but this benefit is achieved only at considerable cost. The evidence is not robust, comprising only a few trials which involve a minute fraction of the existing patients with unexplained infertility. Current best evidence is consistent with a progression from low-tech to high-tech treatment, but it is not convincing enough to support a rigid management protocol. A large multicentre factorial trial is needed to evaluate the relative value of existing empiric treatments for unexplained infertility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".