The mitochondrial DNA content can not predict the embryo viability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective To investigate whether the mitochondrial DNA content could predict the embryo viability Design Retrospective analysis. Setting Reproductive genetics laboratory Patient(s) A total of 421 biopsied samples obtained from 129 patients Intervention(s) Embryo biopsies samples underwent whole genome amplification (WGA) and were tested by next generation sequencing (NGS) and array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH), 30 samples were selected randomly to undergo quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Main Outcome Measure(s) Those embryos which obtained the consistent chromosome status determined both aCGH and NGS platform were further classified. We investigated the relationship of mtDNA content with several factors including female patient age, embryo morphology, chromosome status, and live birth rate of both blastocysts and blastomeres. Result(s) A total of 386 (110 blastomeres and 276 blastocysts) out of 399 embryos showed consistent chromosome status outcome. We found no statistically difference was observed in aneuploid and euploid blastocysts (p=0.14), the same phenomenon was observed in aneuploid and euploid blastomeres (p=0.89). Similarly, the mtDNA content was independent of female patient age, embryo morphology and live birth rate. Conclusion(s) The mtDNA content did not provide a reliable prediction of the viability of blastocysts to initiate a pregnancy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".