MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116713679 · doi:10.1586/17474108.3.5.627

Will<i>in vitro</i>maturation ever be used in all IVF patients?

2008· article· en· W2116713679 on OpenAlexaff
Ezgi Demirtaş, Hananel Holzer, Weon‐Young Son, Shai E. Elizur, Dan Levin, Ri‐Cheng Chian, Seang Lin Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitro fertilisationOvarian hyperstimulation syndromeMedicineIn vitro maturationAndrologyPregnancyIn vitroAssisted reproductive technologyGynecologyPregnancy rateControlled ovarian hyperstimulationObstetricsInfertilityEmbryoOocyteBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro maturation of human oocytes obtained from unstimulated ovaries offers a more ‘patient friendly’ treatment option than conventional IVF treatment with ovarian stimulation to the couples undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. It has classically been offered to women who are considered high risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Since significant progress has been made to improve the implantation and pregnancy rates using in vitro matured oocytes, the patient spectrum for in vitro maturation treatment has become wider. However, implantation and pregnancy rates of conventional IVF are still higher than those of unstimulated cycles followed by in vitro maturation. To improve the in vitro maturation outcomes, some studies have focused on improving in vitro culture conditions, whereas others have tried to improve the quality and quantity of oocytes retrieved by modifications in the follow-up of treatment cycles.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207