The influence of delayed blastocyst formation on the outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are conflicting results on whether the rate of blastocyst development before freezing influences the outcome of frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies to compare pregnancy outcomes following transfer of thawed blastocysts that were frozen either on Day 5 or Day 6 following fertilization in vitro. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: We identified 15 controlled studies comprising 2502 frozen-thawed transfers involving blastocysts that were either frozen on Day 5 or Day 6. Meta-analysis of these studies showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.26, P = 0.01] and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.30, P = 0.03) with Day 5 compared with Day 6 frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers. Sensitivity analysis of those studies where blastocysts frozen on Day 5 or Day 6 were at the same stage of development showed no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87-1.33, P = 0.51) and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.92-1.27, P = 0.36). CONCLUSION: Slower developing blastocysts cryopreserved on Day 6 but at the same stage of development as those developing to the blastocyst stage on Day 5 have similar clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates following frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".