MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003372703 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000018909

Busting the myth of extended blastocyst culture until Day 7

2020· article· en· W3003372703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alessandra Alteri, Laura Corti, Greta Chiara Cermisoni, Enrico Papaleo, Paola Viganò, Marco Noventa

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLive birthBlastocyst TransferEmbryo transferBlastocystCryopreservationPregnancyPregnancy rateAssisted reproductive technologyGynecologyAndrologyObstetricsEmbryoInfertilityBiologyEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prolonged culture of embryos to the blastocyst stage represents an increasing procedure in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) laboratories. Generally, only blastocysts developing on Day 5 and Day 6 are considered suitable embryos for transfer, cryopreservation or biopsy while embryos developed at a slower rate after Day 6 are routinely discarded. However, also blastocysts developing on Day 7 can be viable and result in a healthy live birth. Unfortunately, data regarding the clinical outcomes of Day 7 blastocysts compared to blastocysts developing on Day 5 or Day 6 are controversial. In this systematic review and aggregate data meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the real reproductive potential of delayed blastocysts on Day 7 in frozen cycles. METHODS: We will include all studies, with no restriction regarding the study design (randomized and observational trials, including cohort and case-control), investigating the clinical success of blastocysts developed on Day 7 compared to Day 5 and Day 6 blastocysts. The primary outcomes are the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (Day 7 vs Day 6, and Day 5); secondary outcomes are: live birth rate (LBR) following frozen-thawed embryo transfer, euploid rate and survival rate of thawed blastocyst. Two reviewers independently will judge the methodological quality of studies included in the meta-analysis using the criteria reported in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale according to the design of the trials. The meta-analysis will be performed using random effects models and heterogeneity will be assessed using Higgins I2 value. Summary estimate of the proportion of each outcome will be expressed as pooled proportion with 95% confidence interval (CI). The effect of the day on each outcome will be evaluated using a multilevel mixed-effects model with a moderator (the day). The effect will be expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A P value less than .05 will be considered statistically significant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a systematic review not requiring an ethical approval. Findings derived from this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.170
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.248
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1700.248
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.016
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207