MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401999537 · doi:10.17116/repro20243004159

Regulatory control of gestagens use in Russia in the era of individualized luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

2024· article· en· W4401999537 on OpenAlexaff
Т. И. Пестова, Yu.A. Koloda, A. А. Smirnova, A.G. L’vova, K. Yu. Boyarskiy, Yu.V. Denisova

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Journal of Human Reproduction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuteal phaseReproductionPhase (matter)Corpus luteumMedicineGynecologyInternal medicineBiologyChemistryHormoneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 12-18% of couples are infertile, according to WHO for the last 20 or 30 years. The most effective approach in the infertility treatment is assisted reproductive technology (ART). Despite the active development of this area and the constant improvement of the existing protocols, the gap between the pregnancy rate and the live birth rate reaches almost 30%. One of the serious difficulties standing in the way of the achieving a better reproductive outcome is the lag of the regulatory framework from the amount for some aspect’s elaboration, for example, the gestagens use for ART in Russia. The purpose of this review is to accumulate the latest data on the luteal phase support individualization in the post-transfer period based on biomarker — serum progesterone level, to analyze possible ways to overcome insurance and expert risks when using unregulated progesterone doses and dosage regimens, to emphasize the need for continuity in luteal phase support and pregnancy after ART to ensure the increase in the main criterion of ART effectiveness — live birth.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Journal of Human ReproductionSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207