MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127996246 · doi:10.1186/s13048-021-00773-5

Low risk of OHSS with follitropin delta use in women with different polycystic ovary syndrome phenotypes: a retrospective case series

2021· article· en· W3127996246 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie F. Yacoub, Kenneth Cadesky, Robert F. Casper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ovarian Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersFerring Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionPolycystic ovaryMedicineIn vitro fertilisationOocyteRetrospective cohort studyGynecologyReproductive medicineDosingAndrologyStimulationInternal medicinePregnancyBiologyEmbryoObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To explore the efficacy of follitropin delta in ovarian stimulation of patients with the Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM 2003 phenotypes of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) using a retrospective case series with an electronic file search in a reproductive medicine clinic. CASE PRESENTATION: Seventy-four patients with PCOS undergoing ovarian stimulation according to the individualized dosing algorithm of follitropin delta for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI)/oocyte freezing were included. Follitropin delta resulted in a high number of pre-ovulatory follicles at the end of stimulation as expected in patients with PCOS. There was a large number of oocytes retrieved with an acceptable percentage of metaphase II (MII) oocytes. There were no cases of moderate or severe OHSS across all phenotypes. CONCLUSION: Follitropin delta, using the individualized dosing algorithm, appears to be a safe method of ovarian stimulation with a low risk of OHSS in PCOS patients without sacrificing successful stimulation outcomes.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ovarian ResearchSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207