Renal and Hepatic Functions after A Week of Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation during In Vitro Fertilization Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One the main aspects of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle is to avoid any possible systemic damage on women undergoing a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The aim of this work is to evaluate renal and hepatic function blood tests in patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort analysis. All patients received a long stimulation protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues by daily administration, since the twenty-first day of the previous ovarian cycle followed by COH with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). The daily dose of exogenous gonadotropins for every single patient was modified according to her follicular growth. The oocytes were retrieved during the oocyte pick up and fertilized by standard procedures of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). The blood samples to evaluate renal and hepatic functions were taken at the 7th day of ovarian stimulation. RESULTS: We enrolled 426 women aged between 19 and 44 years, with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 24.68 Kg/m2. The mean value of blood urea nitrogen was 14 ± 3.16 mg/ dl, creatinine: 1 ± 0.45 mg/dl, uric acid: 4 ± 1.95 mg/dl, total proteins: 7 ± 3.93 mg/dl, aspartate aminotransferase: 18 ± 6.29 mU/ml, alanine aminotransferase: 19 ± 10.41 mU/ ml, alkaline phosphatase: 81 ± 45.25 mU/ml, total bilirubin 1 ± 0.35 mg/dL. All of the results were considered as a normal range following the Medical Council of Canada. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that, unlike ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), COH patients did not show any alteration to renal and hepatic functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".