‘Enhancement of embryo developmental potential by a single administration of GnRH agonist at the time of implantation’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jan Tesarik et al. (2004) set out to improve the implantation rate (IR) in their donor oocyte programme by giving recipients in the study group a single injection of a short-acting GnRH agonist (triptorelin 0.1 mg s.c.) on day 6 following a day 3 embryo transfer in the recipient patient. Their IR increased to 36.9% compared to 25.1% in the control group (P < 0.05). Perhaps such results should not have been surprising. GnRH agonists are well known to stimulate placental HCG production both in vivo and in vitro, and the authors note that preimplantation mouse embryos express GnRH receptor mRNA. Based on this study, I have introduced a pilot programme into my practice, administering buserelin 0.2 mg s.c. on day 6 following day 3 or 5 embryo transfers in otherwise traditional IVF cycles. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is usually a rare outcome in my practice, yet frequently patients now complain of early symptoms following the buserelin. Recently, we diagnosed our first severe OHSS in an at-risk patient. She had actually been doing well, until a few hours after the buserelin injection, when symptoms arose (and, 48 h later, completely resolved). I cannot, of course, prove causality. Is luteal GnRH agonist therapy ready for clinical practice? A cautious approach is warranted. It was not that long ago that luteal HCG supplementation held extraordinary promise, yet today its efficacy is considered questionable in many circumstances (Daya and Gunby, 2004). The comparison is made because the two substances may be expected to have similar function on the corpus luteum. By design, Tesarik et al.’s study could not have revealed such activity. A recent study in sheep compared GnRH agonist to HCG administration in the luteal phase, noting comparable results (with HCG demonstrating a slightly higher delivery rate) (Akif Cam and Kuran, 2004). As Tesarik et al. note, further studies will be needed with the GnRH agonists to confirm efficacy and safety across a range of clinical scenarios. However, based on my anecdotal evidence, I would look for an increase in the incidence of OHSS in many patient subgroups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".