The Effect of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) on Kidney Health Outcomes: A Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in females is >12% and prevention of CKD is a patient-identified research priority. Females face unique risks to their kidney health, and exogenous hormone use (hormone replacement therapy and contraceptives) has been implicated in kidney risk. However, there is a paucity of data on how exogenous hormone use in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), commonly utilized in fertility treatment and preservation, affects kidney health. This prospective study will examine the effect of COS on kidney health outcomes, including 1) filtration fraction (FF), 2) glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and 3) kidney plasma flow (KPF). Methods: Healthy females treated with COS will be recruited from the fertility clinic in Calgary, Canada to participate in 2 study days in the research laboratory. Study Day #1 will be a baseline visit immediately prior to initiation of COS treatment and Study Day #2 will be completed at the peak of the hormone administration phase of COS. On each study day, serum hormone levels will be measured. Using standardized protocols, participants will receive intravenously-administrated iohexol and para-aminohippurate and subsequent plasma monitoring to determine GFR and KPF, respectively. FF will be calculated as follows: GFR/KPF. Results: Using a paired non-paramtric student t-test such as the Wilcoxon signed rank test, changes in GFR, KPF and FF will be compared between between Study Day #1 and Study Day #2. Conclusions: The prevalence of CKD in females is increasing rapidly, highlighting the urgency of preventative interventions. COS treatment is common, and this research will elucidate the relationship between COS and kidney health, inform future studies, and empower females and their care providers in their reproductive choices. Funding: Government Support - Non-U.S.
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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.011 |
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".