MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164001780 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deh124

New insights into the pathophysiology of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. What makes the difference between spontaneous and iatrogenic syndrome?

2004· review· en· W2164001780 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne Delbaere

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOvarian hyperstimulation syndromePathophysiologyEndocrinologyFollicular fluidInternal medicineFollicular phaseStimulationMedicinePregnancyBiologyIn vitro fertilisationEmbryoOocyteGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent identification of mutations in the FSH receptor gene, which display an increased sensitivity to hCG and are responsible for the development of spontaneous ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), provides for the first time the molecular basis for the physiopathology of spontaneous OHSS. Based on these recent findings, this paper underlines the differences between spontaneous and iatrogenic OHSS and proposes a model to account for the different chronology between the two forms of the syndrome. In the iatrogenic form, the follicular recruitment and enlargement occur during ovarian stimulation with exogenous FSH, while in the spontaneous form, the follicular recruitment occurs later through the stimulation of the FSH receptor by pregnancy-derived hCG. In both forms, massive luteinization of enlarged stimulated ovaries ensues, inducing the release of vasoactive mediators, leading to the development of the symptoms of OHSS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations100
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207