MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109325762 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr004

GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review

2011· review· en· W2109325762 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

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERMedicinePharmacologyIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsComputer scienceBiologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A NUTSHELL GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review Background GnRH agonists or antagonists can be used to prevent LH surges during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction. GnRH agonists downregulate GnRH pituitary receptors. GnRH antagonists directly and rapidly inhibit gonadotrophin release. In a 2006 systematic review involving 29 trials, the average clinical pregnancy rate was 4.7% lower with GnRH antagonist treatment and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was 2% lower compared with GnRH agonist treatment (Al-Inany et al., 2006). The current update includes 45 trials which addressed live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) in GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist protocols among women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment (Youssef et al., 2011).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.304 · 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