Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews current laboratory techniques and procedures used for in vitro fertilization (IVF). The review covered relevant peer-reviewed articles in areas of IVF and associated treatment methods, such as embryo culture, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), assisted hatching, cryopreservation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis and in vitro maturation. The availability of sequential media makes it possible to culture embryos to the later stage of blastocyst. The use of ICSI vs. IVF alone in male factor infertility results in the production of more embryos with a higher implantation rate. As a result, ICSI has been used successfully worldwide to treat infertile men to enable them to father children. Lack of standardized criteria for patient selection has complicated attempts to qualify the therapeutic value of assisted hatching. There is a general consensus, however, that assisted hatching can be performed in patients following repeated failed fertilization and older women to assist blastocyst hatching, the final stage before uterine implantation. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is offered to both fertile and infertile couples who are at risk of passing genetic defects to their children. There are a few reports of successful human pregnancies following in vitro maturation of immature oocytes. Over the last 2 decades, IVF and associated treatment methods have been developed and greatly improved. The efficacies of these laboratory procedures need to be evaluated to determine if the procedures used have beneficial outcomes in clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".