MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081939511 · doi:10.1159/000184283

Follicle-Stimulating Hormone versus Human Menopausal Gonadotropin for in vitro Fertilization: Results of a Meta-Analysis

2008· review· en· W2081939511 on OpenAlex

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
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitro fertilisationFollicular phaseGonadotropinMeta-analysisFollicle-stimulating hormonePregnancyMenotropinsRandomized controlled trialMedicinePregnancy rateHuman fertilizationEmbryo qualityAndrologyOvulationLuteinizing hormoneHormoneInternal medicineOvulation inductionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The observation of adverse effects of high-follicular-phase LH levels on fertilization, cleavage, embryo quality and pregnancy suggests that exogenous LH administration for ovarian stimulation in IVF may also be detrimental. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of FSH with hMG in IVF by conducting a systematic overview and meta-analysis of the evidence in the literature from randomized trials comparing the two gonadotropins. The data were extracted and pooled from eight studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The results show that FSH performs significantly better than hMG and is associated with at least 50% higher clinical pregnancy rates.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.050 · 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