Unexplained sporadic and recurrent miscarrage in the new millennium: a critical analysis of immune mechanisms and treatments
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
There have been important advances in basic science investigation of mechanisms underlying spontaneous miscarriages which lend support to empirical treatments such as intravenous immunoglobulin G and allogeneic leukocyte immunotherapy. The results from clinical trials of these and other proposed treatments have been problematic. There is only one published meta-analysis of sufficient power and appropriate stratification to qualify as Level 1 evidence, and that deals only with leukocyte immunotherapy. Here we critically review current trials and their flaws, update the meta-analysis, and comment on potential new approaches. Inadequate sample size, better definition of heterogeneity, and proper stratification to minimize the effects of heterogeneity remain as problems. Verification that the experimental or test treatment was active in producing the expected alteration in immunophysiology in the recipient is lacking in most trials; use of stored rather than fresh allogeneic leukocytes appears problematic. Hidden biases that affect trial significance emerge with critical analysis, and the focus on apparent 'high quality' of design in published reports may be misleading. We conclude that there seem to be enough patients to conduct clinical trials of sufficient size to achieve adequate power to test therapies showing promise in pilot studies, but at present, the only Level 1 evidence concerns leukocyte immunotherapy which appears to increase the chance of a live birth if given to appropriate patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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