MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

卵巢低反应患者口服避孕药、雌激素预治疗对IVF—ET影响的比较研究

2012· article· en· W34086710 on OpenAlexfundno aff
谢广妹, 冯帆, 倪亚莉

Bibliographic record

Venue中国计划生育学杂志 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

目的:比较卵巢低反应患者采用口服避孕药、口服避孕药和雌激素序贯法、单独使用雌激素3种预治疗方案对体外受精-胚胎移植(IVF—ET)的影响。方法:A组对象月经周期第3天开始口服妈富隆,1片/d,持续21d;B组对象月经周期第3天口服妈富隆,1片/d,21d后改为口服补佳乐,2mg/d;C组对象黄体中期开始口服补佳乐,4mg/d;每组均在使用后撤退出血第3天短方案降调,并同时开始超促排卵治疗,比较相关指标。结果:IVF—ET启动日患者基础卵泡刺激素(FSH)水平均降至10U/L以下,预治疗后第3日及hCG日E2水平3组无差异(P〉0.05)。hCG日子宫内膜厚度C组高于A、B组;A组周期取消数高于B、C组;A、B组促性腺激素使用时间长于C组,C组妊娠率高于A组与B组(均P〈0.05);获卵数,MII卵子数,移植胚胎数差异无统计学意义。结论:对卵巢低反应者,在IVF—ET周期之前给予口服避孕药、雌激素预治疗方案中,黄体中期给予口服补佳乐(4mg/d)的治疗效果最佳。

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue中国计划生育学杂志Same topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207