MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4381619565 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead093.1052

P-733 A non-selection study to evaluate non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

2023· article· en· W4381619565 sur OpenAlexaff
Tao Li, C.C.W. Chan, Ellen Greenblatt

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoSinai Health System
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEmbryo transferAneuploidyBlastocystEmbryoBlastocoelSingle Embryo TransferLive birthBiologyAndrologySelection (genetic algorithm)BiopsyGenetic testingPregnancy rateBlastocyst TransferCryopreservationPregnancyGynecologyMedicineEmbryogenesisGeneticsInternal medicineComputer scienceGene

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Study question How does non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (niPGT-A) perform to predict sustained implantation or live birth (SI/LB)? Summary answer Though not comparable to conventional PGT-A, niPGT-A can still be considered an appealing tool for clinical embryo prioritizing given its high negative predictive value (NPV). What is known already To omit the need for the invasive trophectoderm biopsy, niPGT-A which screens embryonic ploidy using embryonic cell free DNA released into the spent embryo culture medium (SEM) or blastocoel fluid (BF) was developed. Although the feasibility of niPGT-A has been shown and healthy live births have been reported from embryos screened by niPGT-A, the predictive value of niPGT-A for embryo transfer outcome has not been established yet and evidence is still lacking as to whether embryo selection by niPGT-A is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes. The answers to these are of vital importance to justify niPGT-A for clinical care. Study design, size, duration This is a single center, blinded, non-selection study consisting of single frozen embryo transfer cycles with a duration of two years, of which 117 cycles (Arm-1) were completed for 83 patients by transferring an embryo that was only morphologically assessed, and 90 cycles (Arm-2) were completed for 67 patients by transferring an euploid embryo that was screened by conventional biopsy-based PGT-A. Participants/materials, setting, methods Embryos were cultured in 25 μL continuous culture medium until blastocyst stage. The “SEM+BF” samples were ongoingly collected and archived at the end of culture. In Arm-1, after pregnancy outcomes were determined, the corresponding “SEM+BF” samples were pulled out for niPGT-A. In Arm-2, niPGT-A was also performed for some cases that did not end up in an SI/LB. NiPGT-A was completed by NICS and the incorporated ChromGo platform (Yikon Genomics). Main results and the role of chance Out of the 117 “SEM+BF” samples in Arm-1, 110 (94%) yielded an informative niPGT-A result. Among these, 46 transferred embryos were determined as “euploid” by niPGT-A and 15 resulted in SI/LB; 32 were determined as “aneuploid” and 27 did not resulted in SI/LB. Therefore, the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of niPGT-A were 32.6% (15/46) and 84.4% (27/32), respectively. Another 32 transferred embryos in Arm-1 were determined as “suspected mosaic” and they showed a similar rate of SI/LB per embryo transfer to those “euploid” ones (37.5% vs. 32.6%, P = 0. 8092). Compared to Arm-1 overall, the “transferrable” embryos (“euploid” + “suspected mosaic”) determined by niPGT-A resulted in a much higher rate of SI/LB (34.6% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.3399). In Arm-2, 39 out of the 90 transferred euploid embryos resulted in SI/LB. “Euploid” embryos determined by PGT-A resulted in significantly better rate of SI/LB than “euploid” embryos determined by niPGT-A in Arm-1 (43.3% vs. 32.6%, P = 0.0243). Out of the 51 PGT-A “euploid” embryos that did not end up in SI/LB, 25 were also tested by niPGT-A with 6 being “suspected mosaic” and 3 being “abnormal/aneuploid”, raising the concern of possible false negative of conventional PGT-A. Limitations, reasons for caution The study enrolled a non-selected patient population which resulted in the inclusion of a few patients with a history of repeated implantation failure. Therefore, the PPV of niPGT-A might be underestimated as implantation failure could be attributed to defects in endometrial receptivity rather than in embryo quality. Wider implications of the findings This is the first non-selection study to validate niPGT-A in the setting of continuous culture medium. The high informative rate indicates its feasibility for clinics using a similar culture system. It also forms the foundation of a prospective, randomized controlled trial to further assess the benefit of niPGT-A. 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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,365
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · 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'étudeEssai non randomisé
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

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsTravaux en français237 207