Management of the infertile couple: an evidence-based protocol
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
BACKGROUND: Infertility is defined as inability of a couple to conceive naturally after one year of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. It remains a major clinical and social problem, affecting perhaps one couple in six. Evaluation usually starts after 12 months; however it may be indicated earlier. The most common causes of infertility are: male factor such as sperm abnormalities, female factor such as ovulation dysfunction and tubal pathology, combined male and female factors and unexplained infertility. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to provide the healthcare professionals an evidence-based management protocol for infertile couples away from medical information overload. METHODS: A comprehensive review where the literature was searched for "Management of infertility and/or infertile couples" at library website of University of Bristol (MetaLib) by using a cross-search of different medical databases besides the relevant printed medical journals and periodicals. Guidelines and recommendations were retrieved from the best evidence reviews such as that from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS), and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). RESULTS: A simple guide for the clinicians to manage the infertile couples. CONCLUSIONS: The study deploys a new strategy to translate the research findings and evidence-base recommendations into a simplified focused guide to be applied on routine daily practice. It is an approach to disseminate the recommended medical care for infertile couple to the practicing clinicians.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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