MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386757326 · doi:10.1007/s10815-023-02918-5

The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus for the management of hyper-responders in in vitro fertilization

2023· article· en· W4386757326 on OpenAlexaff
Ido Feferkorn, Samuel Santos‐Ribeiro, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, J. Velasco, Barış Ata, Christophe Blockeel, Alessandro Conforti, Sandro C. Esteves, Human M. Fatemi, Luca Gianaroli, Marcin Grynberg, Peter Humaidan, George T. Lainas, Antonio La Marca, LaTasha B. Craig, Ruth B. Lathi, Robert J. Norman, Raoul Orvieto, Richard J. Paulson, António Pellicer, Nikolaos P. Polyzos, Matheus Roque, Sesh Kamal Sunkara, Seang Lin Tan, Bülent Urman, Christos Venetis, A. Weissman, Hakan Yaralı́, Michael H. Dahan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreOttawa Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitro fertilisationReproductive medicineDelphi methodMedicineBiologyAndrologyGynecologyPregnancyComputer scienceGeneticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To provide agreed-upon guidelines on the management of a hyper-responsive patient undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS) METHODS: A literature search was performed regarding the management of hyper-response to OS for assisted reproductive technology. A scientific committee consisting of 4 experts discussed, amended, and selected the final statements. A priori, it was decided that consensus would be reached when ≥66% of the participants agreed, and ≤3 rounds would be used to obtain this consensus. A total of 28/31 experts responded (selected for global coverage), anonymous to each other. RESULTS: A total of 26/28 statements reached consensus. The most relevant are summarized here. The target number of oocytes to be collected in a stimulation cycle for IVF in an anticipated hyper-responder is 15-19 (89.3% consensus). For a potential hyper-responder, it is preferable to achieve a hyper-response and freeze all than aim for a fresh transfer (71.4% consensus). GnRH agonists should be avoided for pituitary suppression in anticipated hyper-responders performing IVF (96.4% consensus). The preferred starting dose in the first IVF stimulation cycle of an anticipated hyper-responder of average weight is 150 IU/day (82.1% consensus). ICoasting in order to decrease the risk of OHSS should not be used (89.7% consensus). Metformin should be added before/during ovarian stimulation to anticipated hyper-responders only if the patient has PCOS and is insulin resistant (82.1% consensus). In the case of a hyper-response, a dopaminergic agent should be used only if hCG will be used as a trigger (including dual/double trigger) with or without a fresh transfer (67.9% consensus). After using a GnRH agonist trigger due to a perceived risk of OHSS, luteal phase rescue with hCG and an attempt of a fresh transfer is discouraged regardless of the number of oocytes collected (72.4% consensus). The choice of the FET protocol is not influenced by the fact that the patient is a hyper-responder (82.8% consensus). In the cases of freeze all due to OHSS risk, a FET cycle can be performed in the immediate first menstrual cycle (92.9% consensus). CONCLUSION: These guidelines for the management of hyper-response can be useful for tailoring patient care and for harmonizing future research.

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)0.187
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1870.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Assisted Reproduction and GeneticsSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207