Early Pregnancy (Abstracts O-227 to O-231)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Reliable predictors for poor response to ovarian stimulation for IVF remain elusive.In order to explore the reasons for this, follicular phase characteristics of ovulatory women who had shown a poor response were compared to those of a control group. Materials and methods:Twelve regularly cycling (cycle between 24 and 34 days) ovulatory women of median age 36 years (range 29-40) who had shown a poor response [median two follicles Ͼ14 mm (range 0-3)] to previous IVF treatments were included.Daily ultrasound and blood sampling for FSH, LH, oestradiol, progesterone and inhibin A and B were carried out throughout the follicular phase of an unstimulated cycle.Results were compared with the follicular phase characteristics of 38 healthy ovulatory women who served as controls.Results: Poor responders demonstrated a significantly lower number of small follicles throughout the whole follicular phase than the controls (P Ͻ 0.001).On cycle day 3 the median number of follicles was four (range 1-9) versus 13 (range 4-20) (P ഛ 0.001).The day on which follicle dominance was observed and the growth rate of the dominant follicle did not differ between the two groups.Although median and ranges of maximum FSH concentrations [11.6 IU/l (7.7-47.0)for poor responders versus 6.2 IU/l (4.3-11.2) in controls (P Ͻ 0.001)] and cycle day 3 FSH concentrations [10.3 IU/l (7.2-21.4) for poor responders versus 5.1 IU/l (3.6-11.2) in controls (P Ͻ 0.001)] were significantly different, 50% of the poor responders had a cycle day 3 FSH or maximum FSH within normal ranges.Moreover, they had normal inhibin B concentrations in the early follicular phase and normal inhibin A concentrations in the late follicular phase.Conclusions: These findings support the recent proposed concept that the number of antral follicles on cycle day 3 is a better predictor of response to ovarian stimulation than the widely used endocrine parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.232 | 0.063 |
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".