Recombinant human luteinizing hormone to trigger ovulation: randomized, controlled, dose-finding pilot study in ovulation induction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate recombinant human luteinizing hormone (r-hLH) versus urine-derived human chorionic gonadotropin (u-hCG) to trigger ovulation in women (aged 20-40 years) with WHO Group II anovulatory infertility undergoing ovulation induction (OI) with recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) (150 IU/day starting dose). STUDY DESIGN: For this Phase II, open-label, dose-finding pilot study, patients were randomized to doses of 825, 2,750, 5,500, 11,000, or 22,000 IU r-hLH or u-hCG (5,000 IU). Primary endpoints were ovulation and ratio of ruptured follicles/follicle > or = 15 mm (day of r-hLH/ u-hCG administration). Secondary endpoints included monofollicular ovulation and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULTS: All 67 randomized patients completed treatment. All patients in the r-hLH 2,750 (13/13), 5,500 (12/ 12), 11,000 IU (13/13), and u-hCG 5,000 IU (12/ 12) groups ovulated; 3/5 patients in the r-hLH 825 IU and 2/12 in the r-hLH 22,000 IU group failed to ovulate (p = 0.105 between evaluable groups). The mean ratio of ruptured follicles/ follicle > or = 15 mm was 1.1 (p = 0.675 between groups). The monofollicular ovulation rate was 15/60 (25%). Two cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were reported. CONCLUSION: This open-label, pilot study (conducted in 1999-2001) suggests that the minimal effective dose of r-hLH to trigger ovulation in women with WHO Group II anovulatory infertility undergoing OI with r-hFSH (150 IU starting dose) was 2,750 IU.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".