In vitro fertilization cycles stimulated with follitropin delta result in similar embryo development and quality when compared with cycles stimulated with follitropin alfa or follitropin beta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ObjectiveTo study the impact of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation on embryo development and quality compared with that of follitropin alfa or beta in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles.DesignRetrospective cohort studySettingUniversity-affiliated, hospital-based fertility clinicPatient(s)A total of 403 IVF/ICSI cycles were conducted from September 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019. Cycles were grouped on the basis of stimulation with follitropin delta vs. follitropin alfa or beta.Intervention(s)None.Main Outcome Measure(s)Embryo parameters and clinical pregnancy and implantation rates.Result(s)Ovarian stimulation using follitropin delta resulted in no statistically significant difference in day 3 embryo quality between the control group and follitropin delta group (median 0.50 vs. 0.54 for good quality embryos and median 0.25 vs. 0.20 for intermediate quality embryos). Although on initial analysis there was a lower proportion of good quality blastocysts in the follitropin delta group than in the control group (0.11 vs. 0.22), this difference was no longer present when day 3 after fertilization vitrification and transfer cycles were excluded (0.26 vs. 0.33 follitropin delta vs. control). The clinical pregnancy rates and clinical implantation rates were similar in both groups in fresh transfer cycles.Conclusion(s)Stimulation with follitropin delta in IVF/ICSI cycles resulted in similar embryo development and pregnancy rates compared with those of stimulation with follitropin alfa or beta. To study the impact of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation on embryo development and quality compared with that of follitropin alfa or beta in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles. Retrospective cohort study University-affiliated, hospital-based fertility clinic A total of 403 IVF/ICSI cycles were conducted from September 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019. Cycles were grouped on the basis of stimulation with follitropin delta vs. follitropin alfa or beta. None. Embryo parameters and clinical pregnancy and implantation rates. Ovarian stimulation using follitropin delta resulted in no statistically significant difference in day 3 embryo quality between the control group and follitropin delta group (median 0.50 vs. 0.54 for good quality embryos and median 0.25 vs. 0.20 for intermediate quality embryos). Although on initial analysis there was a lower proportion of good quality blastocysts in the follitropin delta group than in the control group (0.11 vs. 0.22), this difference was no longer present when day 3 after fertilization vitrification and transfer cycles were excluded (0.26 vs. 0.33 follitropin delta vs. control). The clinical pregnancy rates and clinical implantation rates were similar in both groups in fresh transfer cycles. Stimulation with follitropin delta in IVF/ICSI cycles resulted in similar embryo development and pregnancy rates compared with those of stimulation with follitropin alfa or beta.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».