MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096288608 · doi:10.1093/humrep/15.4.917

Inhibition by human embryos of mouse granulosa cell progesterone production: development of a sensitive bioassay

2000· article· en· W2096288608 on OpenAlexaff
Anshul Dhawan

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioassayEmbryoOocyteBiologyRadioimmunoassayEndocrinologyAndrologyInternal medicineCell biologyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproduction technologies could be improved by the development of methods to evaluate oocyte or embryo quality in a non-invasive, quantitative manner. Since human embryos secrete a factor that inhibits granulosa cell progesterone production, an interspecies bioassay was established to investigate whether the presence of this progesterone-inhibitory factor (PIF) in human embryo-conditioned (HEC) media is related to the health and developmental capacity of the embryos. Oocytes were microsurgically removed from oocyte-cumulus complexes isolated from superovulated mouse ovaries, and the oocytectomized complexes were cultured in HEC media in the presence of follicle stimulating hormone and testosterone. Progesterone accumulation in the media was determined by radioimmunoassay. Despite the potential limitations of very small volumes of HEC media to evaluate, and the need to freeze these media at the source, the bioassay was able to detect PIF activity in HEC media. Most embryos produced PIF activity, but the degree of inhibition was not correlated with the ability of oocytes to be fertilized, nor with embryo morphology or ability to cleave and develop after transfer. These results demonstrate that secretion of PIF by human embryos can be measured by this bioassay and that human PIF can inhibit murine granulosa cell steroidogenesis; however, PIF activity is not correlated with human embryo quality or developmental competence.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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