Elective single embryo transfer: Is frozen better than fresh?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Single embryo transfer (SET) has been recommended to avoid multiple births following assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. Many studies have shown that frozen embryo transfer may yield better pregnancy rates than fresh embryo transfer. This study looked into pregnancy rates following fresh versus frozen single embryo transfer procedures in age-matched patients. METHODS: This retrospective case control study was carried out at a private clinic [NewLife Fertility Clinic, ON, Canada]. Patient groups included infertile women treated with IVF/ICSI and elective single embryo transfer (eSET) given either fresh or frozen embryos. Cycle outcomes were compared between patient groups matched by age. The primary endpoints were positive testing for ß-hCG and viable ongoing pregnancy. The secondary endpoints were live birth and miscarriage rates. RESULTS: A total of 583 eSET cycles (212 fresh transfer cycles and 371 frozen transfer cycles) were performed. Significantly higher pregnancy and live birth rates were observed among patients aged ≤ 39 years given frozen embryos. CONCLUSION: Frozen single embryo transfer was associated with higher pregnancy and live birth rates when compared to fresh single embryo transfer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it