Microvascular Density as a Parameter of Endometrial Assessment in Infertile Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A good blood flow towards the endometrium is an essential prerequisite for its development and differentiation, for the implantation of blastocyst and continuation of pregnancy. Diminished endometrial perfusion may be the one of the important reason behind the patients with unexplained infertility. The present study was carried out to estimate the cut-off of microvascular density determinative of good endometrial receptivity. Methods: The study included 60 patients who qualified the exclusion and inclusion criteria. Transvaginal Doppler ultrasonographic examination was performed for all patients prior to the scheduled premenstrual biopsy to determine sub endometrial blood flow. The biopsied endometrial tissue was processed. The blood vessels were identified in endometrial tissue and counted in 5 high power fields/slide. Total area of the field was calculated using stage micrometer. The density of the vessels was calculated as number of vessels/mm 2 of the fields. Results: Three vascular penetration zones based on Doppler ultrasonographic examination were identified as zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3 i.e. poor, intermediate and good vascularity respectively. The endometrial microvascular density in patients with vascularity falling in zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3 were 14.18 ± 4.07 vessels/mm 2 , 24.53 ± 4.65 vessels/mm 2 and 42.3 ± 6.1 vessels/mm 2 respectively. Comparative observation between Doppler and microvascular density revealed that in all patients with zone 3 vascularity, the microvascular density was more than 35 vessels/mm ² . Conclusions: A quantitative parameter was obtained from this study which identifies good endometrial receptivity and predicts the fertility of the patient which can be used as a prognostic marker in infertile patients particularly in developing countries. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jcgo168w
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".