Comparison between Efficacy of Ultrasonography and Urinary Luteinizing Hormone Kit in Intra-Uterine Insemination Timing: A Clinical Trail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficiency of ultrasound in measuring the size of follicle and urinary Luteinizing Hormone (uLH) kit surge in determining LH surge for determining the time and outcomes of Intra Uterine Insemination (IUI). In this comparative, nonrandomized, not blinded clinical trial, 311 IUI cycles in 262 infertile women undergoing IUI were assigned into two groups of ultrasound (n=100 cycles) and uLH kit (n=211 cycles) for the IUI timing. Patients were allowed to choose which study group they preferred. Two weeks after doing the IUI the βhcG was checked and if the chemical pregnancy was confirmed then four weeks after positive chemical pregnancy test the clinical pregnancy was confirmed by observing the fetal heart activity in a pelvic ultrasound. The primary outcome of the study was the comparison of clinical pregnancy rate between two groups. The cause of infertility, the average age of men and women, ovulation induction protocol among the two groups was the same. Chemical pregnancy rate did not significantly differ between ultrasound and uLH kit groups (14.3% vs 18.4%, P value=0.11).Moreover, clinical pregnancy rates were similar between ultrasound and uLH kit groups that was not statistically significant (10.3% vs 10.3, P value=0.3). Finally, we concluded that the uLH kit is comparable with ultrasonography for timing of IUI. Therefore, the application of uLH kit is superior to ultrasonography in terms of cost and feasibility of use.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".