Clinical efficacy and mechanism of growth hormone action in patients experiencing repeat implantation failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to investigate the clinical efficacy of growth hormone (GH) in patients experiencing repeat implantation failure (RIF) and explore the possible mechanism. Forty-two RIF patients undergoing in vitro fertilization - embryo transfer (IVF-ET) were enrolled in the present trial: 22 patients who received GH (treatment group) and 20 who did not receive GH (controls). The clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in the treatment group were significantly higher than those in the control group (both P < 0.05). The treatment group expressed significantly higher levels of growth hormone receptor (GHR) mRNA than the control group (P < 0.05). Further analysis showed that GH levels in follicular fluid were positively correlated with the expression levels of mRNA encoding GHR in granulosa cells (r = 0.460, P < 0.05). GH treatment enhanced IVF pregnancy outcomes and increased the expression of GHR in granulosa cells in fluid. GH levels in follicular fluid were positively correlated with the expression levels of GHR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".