MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087208863 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dem307

Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue and in vitro matured oocytes in a female with mosaic Turner syndrome: Case Report

2007· article· en· W2087208863 on OpenAlexafffund
Jack Y.J. Huang, Togas Tulandi, Hananel Holzer, N.M. Lau, Suzanne E. MacDonald, Seang Lin Tan, Ri‐Cheng Chian

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsGerminal vesicleCryopreservationIn vitro maturationBiologyAndrologyFertility preservationTurner syndromeOocyteVitrificationOocyte cryopreservationOvarian tissue cryopreservationGynecologyFertilityMedicineEmbryoEndocrinologyPopulationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a novel approach of fertility preservation in a young woman with mosaic Turner syndrome. A 16-year-old female with 20% 45XO and 80% 46XX karyotype underwent laparoscopic ovarian wedge resection. Before performing ovarian tissue cryopreservation, all visible follicles on the ovarian surface were aspirated. We recovered 11 immature germinal vesicle stage oocytes, which were subjected to in vitro maturation (IVM). Eight oocytes that matured (73% maturation rate) were cryopreserved by vitrification. The combination of ovarian tissue cryobanking and immature oocyte collection from the tissue followed by IVM and vitrification of matured oocytes represent a promising approach of fertility preservation for young women with mosaic Turner syndrome.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations124
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207