Clinical definition paper on<i>in vitro</i>maturation of human oocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro maturation (IVM) of human oocytes is a reproductive technique which has been practiced for 25 years and is gaining popularity. However, the techniques used for IVM differ substantially across clinics and they result in extremely variable pregnancy rates, partially due to some of these differences in protocols. Such differences include the use in some cycles of hCG triggering prior to oocyte retrieval and the use of a few days of gonadotrophin treatment to support moderate follicle growth. Other important factors are patient selection (including those with polycystic ovaries or decreased ovarian reserve), the number of embryos transferred and cleavage-stage embryo or blastocyst transfer. There are also substantial differences of opinion among clinicians regarding IVM and what it implies. Due to the large variation in protocols, a decision was made to write this paper in an attempt to introduce uniformity when comparing treatments and outcomes of IVM. A clinical definition of IVM was developed: The retrieval of oocytes from small and intermediate sized follicles in an ovary before the largest follicle has surpassed 13 mm in mean diameter. The use of short gonadotrophin stimulation should be acknowledged. However, it should be stated that metaphase II oocytes also have the potential to be collected at that time in the cycles associated with either hCG or GnRH agonist priming. Many feel this is not IVM because some mature oocytes are retrieved, therefore, we recommend renaming this procedure either natural cycle IVF or modified natural cycle IVF (if gonadotrophin stimulation is given) with early triggering, combined with IVM The percentage as well as the absolute number of mature oocytes at retrieval should be indicated. The use of these titles will allow transparency when comparing results of IVM cycles.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
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".