The outcome of IVF-embryo transfer treatment in patients who develop three follicles or less
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among 828 patients undergoing IVF-embryo transfer treatment, the implantation and pregnancy rates of patients who developed < or = 3 follicles were compared prospectively with those patients who had a normal response. Patients who developed 1 to 3 follicles during ovarian stimulation elected to proceed with oocyte collection, have intrauterine insemination if appropriate, or to have their cycle cancelled. In the group of patients who developed < or = 3 follicles and who were aged <40 years, despite a significantly lower number of oocytes collected [2 versus 7; median difference (MD) = 9; confidence interval (CI) = 7-11, and lower number of embryos developed and transferred (1 versus 3; MD = 2; CI = 1-2), no difference in either implantation rate [27.8 versus 20.4%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.58; CI = 0.46-4.54] or pregnancy rate (27.8 versus 36.7%; OR = 0.7; CI = 0.2-2.0) was noted when compared with similarly aged patients who developed >3 follicles. However, in patients aged >40 years who developed < or = 3 follicles, a moderate, albeit non-significant decrease in implantation rate (3.8 versus 7.8%; OR = 1.91; CI = 0.4-57.0) and pregnancy rate (4.2 versus 18.3%; OR = 1.92; CI = 0.38-57.0) was observed when compared with patients of a similar age who developed >3 follicles. Patients aged <40 years, unlike older patients, maintain good implantation and pregnancy rates despite a poor response to ovarian stimulation. This study indicates that for this group of women, continuation of IVF treatment is a better option than cancellation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it