MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Endometrial Thickness in Fresh and Frozen-Thaw In Vitro Fertilization Cycles: An Analysis of Live Birth Rates From 96,000 Autologous Embryo Transfers

2022· article· en· W4288683333 on OpenAlexaff
Neal Mahutte, M. T. Hartman, Lynn Meng, Andrea Lanes, Zhong‐Cheng Luo, Kimberly Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIn vitro fertilisationEmbryo transferGynecologyHuman chorionic gonadotropinAndrologyObstetricsAbortionPlacenta previaEmbryoLive birthPregnancyPlacentaFetusHormoneEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Abstracted from Fertil Steril 2022;117:792–800) A routine procedure of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is to measure the endometrial thickness, as it has been determined that a measurement of <8 mm at human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) trigger in fresh IVF–embryo transfer (IVF-ET) can increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, low birth weight, placenta previa, and other obstetric complications. In direct dichotomy to this, an endometrial thickness above 7 to 8 mm has a general association of improved IVF 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207