Outcomes of neonates born following transfers of frozen-thawed cleavage-stage embryos with blastomere loss: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite limited information on neonatal safety, the transfer of frozen-thawed cleavage-stage embryos with blastomere loss is common in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. We aimed to evaluate the pregnancy outcomes and safety of frozen-thawed cleavage-stage embryos with blastomere loss. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, cohort study included all frozen-thawed cleavage-stage embryo transfer (FET) cycles between 2002 and 2012. Pregnancy outcomes and subsequent neonatal outcomes were compared between FET cycles with intact embryos and those with blastomere loss. RESULTS: A total of 12,105 FET cycles were included in the analysis (2259 cycles in the blastomere loss group and 9846 cycles in the intact embryo group). The blastomere loss group showed significantly poorer outcomes with respect to implantation, pregnancy, and live birth rates than the intact embryo group. However, following embryo implantation, the two groups were similar with respect to live birth rates per clinical pregnancy. Among multiple pregnancies (4229 neonates), neonates from the blastomere loss group were at an increased risk of being small for gestational age (aOR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.00-2.25) compared to those from the intact group. A similar trend was observed among singletons (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI 0.99-3.37). No associations were found between blastomere loss and the subsequent occurrence of congenital anomalies or neonatal mortality. However, neonates from the blastomere loss group were at an increased risk of transient tachypnea of the newborn (aOR = 5.21, 95% CI 2.42-11.22). CONCLUSIONS: The transfer of embryos with blastomere loss is associated with reduced conception rates. Once the damaged embryos have implanted, pregnancies appear to have the same probability of progressing to live birth but with an increased risk of small for gestational age neonates and transient tachypnea of the newborn. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Registration number: ChiCTR-OOC-16007753 . Registration date: 13 January 2016.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".