Lactoferrin levels in cervical fluid from in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients — correlation with IVF parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since our previous results suggest that lactoferrin (LF) might have roles in the reproductive process and that its levels might change in the female tract as a response to various factors, the aim of this investigation was to assess whether LF levels in cervical secretions correlate with reproductive parameters from in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. Cervical fluid samples were obtained from 34 women under 40 years old enrolled for assisted reproduction techniques, and LF concentration was measured. The mean total protein concentration in all cervical fluid samples was 842.8 ± 116.9 µg/mL. The mean concentration of LF was 0.73 ± 0.06 ng LF/µg of total proteins. We observed that higher LF levels in cervical fluid correlated with lower IVF rates when all patients were analyzed; this negative correlation was also sustained when only patients ≥35 years were studied. The mean LF concentration in cervical fluid was significantly lower among patients with normal IVF rates than in those with values 50% or less. Using a LF cutoff value of 0.83 ng/μg of total proteins, the study revealed a significant association between the LF levels below 0.83 ng/µg of total proteins and IVF rates above 50%. LF levels in cervical mucus could potentially be used as a marker of fertilization outcome.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".