MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is the cumulative live birth rate following in vitro fertilization (IVF) lower with government coverage than prior to coverage?

2018· article· en· W2902153665 on OpenAlexaff
Adhwaa Khudhari, Chamile Sylvestre, Simon Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Reproduction Contraception Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLive birthMedicineIn vitro fertilisationPregnancyPregnancy rateEmbryo transferGynecologyObstetricsRetrospective cohort studyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Most studies conclude that the cumulative pregnancy rate depends on embryo quality and quantity, which is directly related to patient’s age. In the best-case scenario, the cumulative pregnancy rate reaches 79% when the number of embryos reaches 15. Other studies reported 75% probability of live birth after 6 cycles of controlled ovarian stimulation and IVF.Methods: Retrospective cohort study comparing IVF cycles between January 2008 to December 2009 (before governmental coverage), and between January 2012 to December 2013. University-affiliated private IVF clinic. 298 good prognosis IVF patients from 2008-2009 and 610 patients from 2012-2013 were included. The cumulative LBR per IVF cycle was the main outcome measure; the secondary outcome measures were the type of protocol used, percentage of ICSI cycles, fertilization rate, proportion of day 3 versus (vs) day 5 embryo transfers, average number of embryos transferred, average number of frozen embryos, the clinical pregnancy rate and the multiple pregnancy.Results: no statistically significant difference in the cumulative LBR; it was 44.8% in 2008-2009 but 40.3% in 2012-2013. p: 0.134. The long agonist protocol was used the most 2008-2009 (75.5% of the cycles) compared to antagonist protocol in 2012-2013 (77.2%) p <0.01. There was no difference in the use of ICSI, but the fertilization rate in 2012-2013 (60.9% vs 65.9%, p=0.001). The proportion of day 3 embryos transferred in 2008-2009 (82.2%) and 2012-2013 (43.9%), p=0.005, and the proportion of day 5 embryos transferred is 3.7% in 2008-2009 but 54.9% in 2012-2013, p<0.001. The average number of embryos transferred in 2008-2009 was 1.96 vs 1.08 in 2012-2013. The average number of frozen embryos per cycle was not significantly different. The clinical pregnancy rate was not significantly different (56.8% vs 54.3%). The multiple pregnancy rate is 19.4% in 2008-2009 and 0.5% in 2012-2013.Conclusions: In good prognosis IVF patients, the cumulative LBR per cycle started was not significantly different after IVF provincial coverage and the move towards eSET on day 3 or day 5. No advantage of transferring multiple embryos in this group of patients, and that transferring one at a time reduces significantly the multiple pregnancy rate and its complications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Reproduction Contraception Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207