MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139107754 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.102.014043

Thermoreversible Gel Formulation Containing Sodium Lauryl Sulfate as a Potential Contraceptive Device

2003· article· en· W2139107754 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Haineault, Pierrette Gourde, Sylvie Perron, André Désormeaux, Jocelyne Piret, Rabeea F. Omar, Roland R. Tremblay, Michel G. Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSodiumSulfateSodium dodecyl sulfateSodium sulfateSemenChromatographySpermIn vivoSodium citrateChemistryBiologyAndrologyMedicineOrganic chemistryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contraceptive properties of a gel formulation containing sodium lauryl sulfate were investigated in both in vitro and in vivo models. Results showed that sodium lauryl sulfate inhibited, in a concentration-dependent manner, the activity of sheep testicular hyaluronidase. Sodium lauryl sulfate also completely inhibited human sperm motility as evaluated by the 30-sec Sander-Cramer test. The acid-buffering capacity of gel formulations containing sodium lauryl sulfate increased with the molarity of the citrate buffers used for their preparations. Furthermore, experiments in which semen was mixed with undiluted gel formulations in different proportions confirmed their physiologically relevant buffering capacity. Intravaginal application of the gel formulation containing sodium lauryl sulfate to rabbits before their artificial insemination with freshly ejaculated semen completely prevented egg fertilization. The gel formulation containing sodium lauryl sulfate was fully compatible with nonlubricated latex condoms. Taken together, these results suggest that the gel formulation containing sodium lauryl sulfate could represent a potential candidate for use as a topical vaginal spermicidal formulation to provide fertility control in women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207