MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796447345 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dey082

Follicle growth and endocrine dynamics in women with spontaneous luteinized unruptured follicles versus ovulation

2018· article· en· W2796447345 on OpenAlexafffund
S.T. Bashir, Angela Baerwald, M.O. Gastal, Roger A. Pierson, E.L. Gastal

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsOvulationAntral follicleFollicleOvarian follicleMedicineGynecologyEndocrine systemMenstrual cycleFollicular phaseAndrologyEndocrinologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Do growth patterns and endocrine profiles differ between ovulatory follicles (OvFs) and luteinized unruptured follicles (LUFs) in women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Growth rates, diameters and associated endocrine profiles differed between OvFs and LUFs in unstimulated cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Two-three waves of antral follicles develop during the menstrual cycle in ovulatory women of reproductive age, with the second or third wave terminating in ovulation. In contrast, some women can develop LUFs, where a preovulatory follicle fails to rupture and there is subsequent luteinization of the follicle wall. However, no study has compared OvFs and LUFs in unstimulated cycles. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This retrospective observational study was conducted in 56 healthy women of reproductive age (range: 19-41 years) and with a history of regular menstrual cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants who met inclusion criteria were enrolled, as previously reported. Daily transvaginal ultrasonography was performed for one interovulatory interval (IOI) to measure the diameters of all follicles >2 mm. Blood samples were collected every 3 days during the IOI to measure serum concentrations of FSH, LH, estradiol and progesterone. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The interval from emergence to deviation (i.e. follicle selection) was shorter (P < 0.05) for LUFs compared to OvFs. However, the intervals from emergence to maximum diameter and deviation to maximum diameter were longer (P < 0.05) for LUFs compared to OvFs. Follicle deviation in LUFs occurred at a larger diameter (P < 0.05) compared to OvFs, and LUFs grew to larger (P < 0.0001) diameters compared to OvFs. Moreover, LUFs grew faster (P < 0.05) from emergence to deviation and from deviation to maximum diameter, compared to OvFs. LUFs were associated with low (P < 0.05) systemic LH levels at emergence and maximum diameter compared to OvFs. LUFs were also associated with low (P < 0.05) systemic FSH and high (P < 0.05) systemic progesterone at deviation and maximum diameter, respectively. Estradiol was higher (P < 0.05) at deviation and lower (P < 0.05) at maximum diameter for LUFs compared to OvFs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A 3-day interval of blood sampling for hormonal analyses was conducted, as a more frequent sampling interval was not considered acceptable by the study volunteers. A 3-day sampling interval did not allow characterization of acute changes in hormone production during the IOI. In addition, study visits were less frequent when LUFs persisted long after the expected day of the second ovulation of the IOI. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Information about the growth and endocrine dynamics of OvFs and LUFs developing in unstimulated cycles in women may be applied to the early detection of LUF-associated anovulatory infertility and clinical management of women with this condition. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding sources were used for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest in publishing this manuscript. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389141.

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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207