A multicentre randomized controlled trial of expectant management versus IVF in women with Fallopian tube patency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although observational studies suggest that IVF is more effective than no treatment for women with Fallopian tube patency, this has not been tested rigorously in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Eligible consenting couples planning their first treatment cycle in five Canadian fertility clinics received either IVF, within 90 days of randomization, or a period of 90 days with no treatment. Random allocation was stratified by female age and sperm quality, and administered using numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Follow-up assessed live birth and associated morbidity. RESULTS: Sixty-eight couples were randomized to a first cycle of IVF and 71 couples had 3 months without treatment. The live birth rates were 20/68 (29%) and 1/71 (1%), respectively. The single delivery in the untreated group was of twins, as were six of the 20 IVF deliveries (30%). An average of 2.0 embryos were transferred and no triplet pregnancies resulted. The relative likelihood of delivery after allocation to IVF was 20.9-fold higher than after allocation to no treatment [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-155]. The presence of abnormal sperm did not reduce this likelihood. Treating four women (95% CI 3-6) with one cycle of IVF is required to achieve a single additional birth. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a valid and up-to-date comparison for policy makers and patients as they make choices around IVF, accurately measuring and confirming a major benefit from treatment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".