SRB Reproduction, Fertility and Development Award Lecture 2008. Regulation and manipulation of angiogenesis in the ovary and endometrium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The marked cyclical physiological angiogenesis in the developing follicle, corpus luteum and endometrium implies a critical role in health and disease. Our approach to understanding its regulation has been to localise and quantify the temporal changes in putative angiogenic factors, and their receptors, in human and non-human primate tissue and to use antagonists to dissect their role by specific inhibition at defined periods during the ovulatory cycle in non-human primates in vivo. The course of angiogenesis throughout the cycle and the cellular and molecular effects of inhibitory treatments have been investigated in the marmoset ovary and uterus, whereas consequences on pituitary-ovarian function have been monitored in macaques. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) at the time of follicle recruitment or selection prevents endothelial cell proliferation, leading to inhibition of follicular development. VEGF inhibition during the early luteal phase prevents angiogenesis and restricts development of the luteal microvasculature. Inhibition of angiogenesis at all stages of the cycle leads to profound suppression of ovarian function. Even during the 'post-angiogenic' period of the luteal phase, inhibition of VEGF precipitates a suppression of progesterone secretion, pointing to additional roles for VEGF in the ovary. In the endometrium, oestrogen drives endometrial angiogenesis through VEGF. Thus, oestrogen can restore angiogenesis after ovariectomy, but not in the presence of VEGF inhibitors. These investigations enhance our understanding of the regulation of angiogenesis in the ovary and uterus and inform studies on conditions with abnormal vascularisation, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, uterine fibroids and menstrual dysfunction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.210 | 0.094 |
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".