MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2692588342 · doi:10.22074/ijfs.2016.4689

Renal and Hepatic Functions after A Week of Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation during <i>In Vitro</i> Fertilization Cycles.

2017· article· en· W2692588342 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ilaria Romito, Ferdinando Antonio Gulino, Antonio Simone Laganà, Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Attilio Tuscano, Gianluca Leanza, Giulia Musmeci, Vito Leanza, Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda, Marco Palumbo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian hyperstimulation syndromeControlled ovarian hyperstimulationIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionIn vitro fertilisationBlood urea nitrogenCreatinineMedicineInternal medicineFollicle-stimulating hormoneOvarian reserveEndocrinologyAndrologyBiologyHormonePregnancyLuteinizing hormoneInfertility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: fertilization (IVF) cycle is to avoid any possible systemic damage on women undergoing a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The aim of this work is to evaluate renal and hepatic function blood tests in patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: day of ovarian stimulation. RESULTS: . The mean value of blood urea nitrogen was 14 ± 3.16 mg/ dl, creatinine: 1 ± 0.45 mg/dl, uric acid: 4 ± 1.95 mg/dl, total proteins: 7 ± 3.93 mg/dl, aspartate aminotransferase: 18 ± 6.29 mU/ml, alanine aminotransferase: 19 ± 10.41 mU/ ml, alkaline phosphatase: 81 ± 45.25 mU/ml, total bilirubin 1 ± 0.35 mg/dL. All of the results were considered as a normal range following the Medical Council of Canada. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that, unlike ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), COH patients did not show any alteration to renal and hepatic functions.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207