MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922431690 · doi:10.1002/erv.2667

Clinical management of females seeking fertility treatment and of pregnant females with eating disorders

2019· review· en· W2922431690 on OpenAlex
Georgios Paslakis, Martina de Zwaan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Eating Disorders Review · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityEating disordersOffspringPregnancyMenstrual cycleMedicinePsychiatryMental healthPsychologyPopulationEnvironmental healthEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of eating disorders (EDs) might have a significant impact upon pregnancy, birth, and the offspring's well-being. Thus, several specific aspects are to be considered by medical professionals when females with EDs either become pregnant or intend to undergo fertility treatment. Clinical management algorithms for gynaecologists and fertility specialists are missing. Here, based on currently available evidence on the topic, specific clinical recommendations are presented. Treatment by a mental health professional may be necessary for pregnant females suffering from acute EDs or prior to fertility treatment. Because the regulation of the menstrual cycle is known to be induced in the course of ED-specific treatment due to weight gain and eating behaviour stabilization, the necessity and drawbacks of fertility treatments in females with EDs are discussed.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.276 · 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