Pinopodes: a questionable role in endometrial receptivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A better understanding of endometrial receptivity is crucial to the creation and optimization of tests to assess the window of implantation in a clinical setting. Testing endometrial receptivity via scanning electron microscopy of endometrial samples reveals that pinopodes are a very good marker of endometrial receptivity in the rat. There is still disagreement in the literature as to their usefulness as a receptivity marker in both mice and humans. METHODS: Publications related to the discovery, study and usefulness of pinopodes as a marker of endometrial preparation for implantation in both rodents and humans were identified through MEDLINE and other bibliographic databases. RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that pinopodes are good markers of endometrial receptivity in the rat. Pinopodes are not useful in the mouse or human as consistent markers of endometrial receptivity for implantation. In the human, pinopodes have a prolonged (>5 days) presence in the luteal phase and fail to delineate the brief (24-48 h) window of receptivity. CONCLUSIONS: While there are many publications arising from one group supporting the use of pinopodes as a reliable marker of human endometrial receptivity, few independent groups have been able to confirm these results. The clinical usefulness of pinopodes to delineate a period of endometrial receptivity seems unlikely following recent findings that pinopodes are present throughout the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".