MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924850368 · doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.02.013

Management of thin endometrium in assisted reproduction: a clinical practice guideline from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society

2019· review· en· W2924850368 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberly Liu, Michael Hartman, A. Hartman

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive BioMedicine Online · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)CReATe Fertility CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityEndometriumGynecologyGuidelineMedicineGrading (engineering)ReproductionPregnancyObstetricsInfertilityAndrologyHuman reproductionPregnancy rateLive birthBiologyPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact and management of thin endometrium is a common challenge for patients undergoing assisted reproduction. The objective of this Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS) guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) framework on the assessment, impact and management of thin endometrium in assisted reproduction. The effect of endometrial thickness on pregnancy and live birth outcomes in ovarian stimulation and IVF (fresh and frozen cycles) is addressed. In addition, recommendations on the use of adjuvants to improve endometrial thickness and pregnancy outcomes are provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations171
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueReproductive BioMedicine OnlineSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207