MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022187045 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4140

Non-Invasive Isthmocele Treatment: A New Therapeutic Option During Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles?

2020· article· en· W3022187045 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Sami Gürbüz, Funda Göde, Necati Özçimen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIn vitro fertilisationEmbryo transferPregnancyGynecologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate a new medical treatment strategy for infertile patients with isthmocele. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of the records of infertile patients with symptomatic isthmocele who received non-invasive isthmocele treatment (NIIT) before in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycles. Isthmocele volumes were measured before and after NIIT. The IVF results and isthmocele-related complaints were also analyzed. The patients were treated with a depot gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for 3 months before frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Results: The mean isthmocele volume was 471.06 ± 182.81 mm 3 (range: 289.43 - 765.4 mm 3 ) in fresh cycles, but was reduced to 47.94 ± 29.48 mm 3 (range: 18.70 - 105.6 mm 3 ) in frozen-thawed cycles (P < 0.05). Intrauterine fluid was observed in two patients during fresh cycles, but was absent after NIIT during frozen-thawed cycles. There was no brown bloody discharge on the tip of the embryo transfer catheter in any case after NIIT. Two patients became pregnant and underwent term cesarean delivery (25%). Conclusions: NIIT can serve as an alternative pretreatment option for patients with isthmocele during IVF cycles. J Clin Med Res. 2020;12(5):307-314 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4140

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.389
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207