Stimulated intra-uterine insemination is not a natural choice for the treatment of unexplained subfertility: 'Effective treatment' or 'not a natural choice'?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helping couples to choose appropriate therapy for their unexplained subfertility demands a review of evidence for treatment benefit and harm, in the context of both patients' and clinicians' experience and perspective. Ovulation induction (OI) with clomiphene (CC) or gonadotrophin (FSH) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) are often chosen before resorting to IVF. The appropriateness of starting with these low and intermediate intensity treatments is supported by evidence that CC/IUI increases cycle fecundity two- to three-fold, and FSH/IUI, three- to five-fold over the baseline chance of pregnancy in this patient group. While both OI/IUI and IVF have adverse effects which deserve vigorous attention, particularly multiple pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), the balance between benefits and costs often favours OI/IUI. The cost per live birth and potential for OHSS appears lower with OI/IUI, and the proportion of multiple pregnancies similar to that seen with IVF. For these as well as physical and spiritual reasons, OI/IUI is often a natural starting point for couples, especially when female age and duration of subfertility are favourable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".