MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461255587

Human chorionic gonadotropin for in vitro oocyte maturation: does it improve the endometrium or implantation?

2004· article· en· W2461255587 on OpenAlexaff
William Buckett, Ri‐Cheng Chian, Seang Lin Tan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman chorionic gonadotropinEndometriumUterine arteryEmbryo transferGynecologyAndrologyIn vitro fertilisationOocytePolycystic ovaryEmbryoPregnancyInternal medicineHormoneBiologyGestation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) priming on endometrial receptivity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing in vitro maturation. STUDY DESIGN: The study was a randomized, controlled trial. After a withdrawal bleed, on day 8-10 of the cycle, women were randomized to receive 10,000 IU hCG or none 36 hours before immature oocyte retrieval. Oocytes were matured and fertilized, and up to 3 embryos were transferred. Prior to transfer, endometrial thickness, uterine artery pulsatility index and subendometrial bloodflow were determined. RESULTS: There was no difference in endometrial thickness (10.1 vs. 10.4 mm), uterine artery pulsatility index (2.45 vs. 2.65) or absent subendometrial bloodflow (23% vs. 18%) between the treatment and control groups. Higher numbers of embryos were produced in the treatment group (7.0 vs. 3.6), resulting in more pregnancies, although the implantation rates (16.7 vs. 16.0%) were similar. CONCLUSION: Preretrieval hCG priming does not improve the ultrasound parameters of endometrial receptivity or the implantation rate, although more embryos are generated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207