MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3193763314 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deab130.694

P–695 Establishing predictors of the mode of conception in fertility patients presenting with a clinical pregnancy

2021· article· en· W3193763314 sur OpenAlexaff
K Rotshenke. Olshinka, Naama Steiner, Eryn Sarah Rubenfeld, Michael H. Dahan

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInfertilityFertilityUnexplained infertilityMedicinePregnancyObstetricsGynecologyOvulation inductionSpontaneous conceptionIn vitro fertilisationFemale infertilityRetrospective cohort studyPopulationInternal medicineBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Study question What are the predictors for pregnancies conceived spontaneously (SC), by ovulation induction+/-insemination (OI±IUI) or via In-Vitro Fertilization(IVF), and what proportion of pregnancies were conceived with each method? Summary answer Pregnancies were conceived by SC(27.7%), OI±IUI(33%) or IVF(39.2%).Unexplained infertility positively-predicted SC and OI±IUI-conceptions. Male factor-infertility demonstrated the opposite trend, positively predicting IVF. Endometriosis negatively-predicted SC. What is known already Spontaneous conception (SC) occurs regularly among infertility patients. Most studies have evaluated predictors of pregnancy among women with infertility who were trying to conceive. Few studies have addressed the role of different factors on the mode of conception in infertility patients who were pregnant. Factors found in some studies to be related with a SC were younger female age, shorter duration of infertility, fewer failed IVF cycles, and diagnosis of unexplained-infertility. Study design, size, duration We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a University fertility-center over a six-month period in 2019 and 2020. We reviewed viability scans of 285-patients. Mode of conception was recorded as Spontaneous, OI±IUI, or IVF. Patients’ demographics, obstetric and fertility diagnosis as well as base-line hormones and ovarian reserve testing were extracted to calculate predictors for the mode of conception. Pregnancy was defined as an intra-uterine fetal sac on a transvaginal ultrasound in the 1st-trimester. Participants/materials, setting, methods Parametric analysis was done using ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test. Nonparametric analysis was performed using the chi-square test. Predictors of the mode of conception were calculated by multivariate regression analysis using the variables not in the equation model including the following parameters: male and female age, gravidity, parity, ectopic-pregnancies, infertility diagnosis, baseline serum: FSH, estradiol, TSH, AMH, and AFC. Data is presented as mean ±SD or percentage. P < 0.05 was significant. IRB approval was obtained. Main results and the role of chance 79 (27.7%) of pregnancies were SC, 94 (33%) resulted from OI±IUI, and 112 (39.2%) from IVF. Demographics didn’t differ between the groups including: female age(p = 0.06), male age(p = 0.79), gravidity (p = 0.47), parity(p = 0.7), ectopic-pregnancies(p = 0.07), baseline serum FSH(p = 0.29), estradiol(p = 0.65), TSH(p = 0.56), AMH(p = 0.42), and AFC(p = 0.06). Infertility diagnoses differed when comparing SC, OI±IUI and IVF conceptions respectively: Unexplained (22.7%, 22.3%, 15.1%, p = 0.03), Male-Factor(MF) (25%, 27.6%, 42.8%, p = 0.042), Tubal-factor (2.5%, 2.1%, 13.4, p = 0.002) and Ovulation-disorders/PCOS (24%, 32%, 12.5% p = 0.002). Endometriosis trended higher in women with IVF (p = 0.09). A positive predictor for SC was unexplained infertility(p = 0.0001). A negative predictor was endometriosis(p = 0.005). SC was sub-significantly less likely in the presence of MF (p = 0.057). Unexplained-infertility was a positive predictor for OI±IUI pregnancies(p = 0.047), whereas MF was a negative predictor(p = 0.0001). As for IVF-conceptions, MF was a positive predictor(p = 0.008), while unexplained-infertility negatively predicted conception by IVF(p = 0.018). Ovulation-disorders/PCOS trended lower in women with IVF (p = 0.052). While baseline serum estradiol levels were similar between groups (means 194–218pmol/L), multivariate regression showed it to be a predictor for OI±IUI and IVF conceptions. The clinical significance of this finding is not clear. Interestingly, female age and ovarian reserve were not found to predict one type of conception over another. Other possible predictors in the model were not significant. Limitations, reasons for caution This retrospective cohort may hide underlying bias. Clinical pregnancies were evaluated and not live birth. Our cohort represents patients that conceived and do not offer information about the entire sub-fertile population that is treated in our center, which is also a strength as it’s a novel way of evaluating predictors. Wider implications of the findings: Among patients that conceived spontaneously, advanced age and ovarian reserve did not play a negative role. Predictors of pregnancy were confirmed as expected with the majority of unexplained infertility conceptions occurring spontaneously or with OI+/-IUI, patients with Male factor infertility often conceived by IVF, and ovulation disorders by OI+/-IUI. Trial registration number NA

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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 enseignants0,055
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,304

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,326
Écart entre enseignants0,291 · 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 tête enseignante, 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

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyTravaux en français237 207