Comparison of GnRH agonist and hCG for priming in vitro maturation cycles in cancer patients undergoing urgent fertility preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes retrieved at germinal vesicle or Metaphase I stage, followed by vitrification of Metaphase II (MII) oocytes, has recently emerged as an option for urgent fertility preservation (FP). Priming is usually achieved with an injection of hCG, 10,000 IU, 36 hours before retrieval. This study aimed to assess a new method of priming, using GnRH agonists, and compare it to hCG, in cancer patients undergoing urgent FP. From 2009 to 2015, 373 cancer patients underwent MII oocyte cryopreservation after IVM cycles primed either with GnRHa (triptorelin 0.2 mg) (n = 138) or hCG (10,000 IU) (n = 235). Patients' characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The number of COC retrieved was significantly higher in the GnRHa group (9.1 ± 6.8 versus 7.7 ± 5.5 oocytes, p = 0.04). However, the maturation rates (59 ±25% versus 64 ±26%, p = 0.07, respectively), and the total number of MII oocytes frozen (5.2 ±4.2 versus 4.9 ±4.0, p = 0.6, respectively) were similar between the GnRha and hCG groups. We did not find any difference between GnRHa and hCG priming for IVM. GnRHa priming is more physiological since it stimulates endogenous FSH and LH activity, and is well suited for FP in hormone-sensitive cancers and urgent cases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".