MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recent advances in in vitro fertilization

2017· preprint· en· W2753306401 on OpenAlexaff
Robert F. Casper, Jigal Haas, Tzu‐Bou Hsieh, Rawad Bassil, Chaula Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitro fertilisationOpen peer reviewOocyteMedicineBiologyHuman fertilizationReproductive technologyPlant biologyPhysiologyCell biologyCryopreservationEmbryoAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p>The field of assisted reproductive technology is rapidly progressing with many new advances in the last decade. The present review discusses methods to improve oocyte quality in older women and new stimulation protocols that may improve the number of mature oocytes retrieved during an <ns4:italic>in vitro</ns4:italic> fertilization cycle. We will discuss the present use of pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) and finally focus on some new methods to determine endometrial receptivity. The focus of this review is to point out areas of technology that may be controversial or are new enough to require proper controlled studies for validation.</ns4:p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207