MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2978009649 · doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz020

Secondary sex ratio in assisted reproduction: an analysis of 1 376 454 treatment cycles performed in the UK

2019· article· en· W2978009649 sur OpenAlexaff
Prasanna Raj Supramaniam, Monica Mittal, Eric O. Ohuma, Lee Nai Lim, Enda McVeigh, Ingrid Granne, Christian M. Becker

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction Open · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthEuropean Society of Human Reproduction and EmbryologyEuropean CommissionWellbeing of WomenNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceBayer
Mots-clésLive birthSingletonEmbryo transferSex ratioReproductionGynecologyPregnancyMedicineObstetricsDemographyBiologyPopulationGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Does ART impact the secondary sex ratio (SSR) when compared to natural conception? SUMMARY ANSWER IVF and ICSI as well as the stage of embryo transfer does impact the overall SSR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The World Health Organization quotes SSR for natural conception to range between 103 and 110 males per 100 female births. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A total of 1 376 454 ART cycles were identified, of which 1 002 698 (72.8%) cycles involved IVF or ICSI. Of these, 863 859 (85.2%) were fresh cycles and 124 654 (12.4%) were frozen cycles. Missing data were identified in 14 185 (1.4%) cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All cycles recorded in the anonymized UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) registry database between 1991 and 2016 were analysed. All singleton live births were included, and multiple births were excluded to avoid duplication. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The overall live birth rate per cycle for all IVF and ICSI treatments was 26.2% (n = 262 961), and the singleton live birth rate per cycle was 17.1% (n = 171 399). The overall SSR for this study was 104.0 males per 100 female births (binomial exact 95% CI: 103.1–105.0) for all IVF and ICSI cycles performed in the UK recorded through the HFEA. This was comparable to the overall SSR for England and Wales at 105.3 males per 100 female births (95% CI: 105.2–105.4) from 1991 to 2016 obtained from the Office of National Statistics database. Male predominance was seen with conventional insemination in fresh IVF treatment cycles (SSR 110.0 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 108.6–111.5) when compared to micro-injection in fresh ICSI treatment cycles (SSR 97.8 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 96.5–99.2; odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.12–1.19, P < 0.0001), as well as with blastocyst stage embryo transfers (SSR 104.8 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 103.5–106.2) when compared to a cleavage stage embryo transfer (SSR 101.2 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 99.3–103.1; OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.06, P = 0.011) for all fertilization methods. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The quality of the data relies on the reporting system. Furthermore, success rates through ART have improved since 1991, with an increased number of blastocyst stage embryo transfers. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the largest study to date evaluating the impact of ART on SSR. The results demonstrate that, overall, ART does have an impact on the SSR when assessed according to the method of fertilization (ICSI increased female births while IVF increased males). However, given the ratio of IVF to ICSI cycles at present with 60% of cycles from IVF and 40% from ICSI, the overall SSR for ART closely reflects the population SSR for, largely, natural conceptions in England and Wales. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study received no funding. C.M.B. is a member of the independent data monitoring group for a clinical endometriosis trial by ObsEva. He is on the scientific advisory board for Myovant and medical advisory board for Flo Health. He has received research grants from Bayer AG, MDNA Life Sciences, Volition Rx and Roche Diagnostics as well as from Wellbeing of Women, Medical Research Council UK, the NIH, the UK National Institute for Health Research and the European Union. He is the current Chair of the Endometriosis Guideline Development Group for ESHRE and was a co-opted member of the Endometriosis Guideline Group by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). I.G. has received research grants from Wellbeing of Women, the European Union and Finox. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,046

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,111
Tête enseignante GPT0,388
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations44
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman Reproduction OpenMême sujetDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesTravaux en français237 207