MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036327863 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa107

GnRH agonist and hCG (dual trigger) versus hCG trigger for final follicular maturation: a double-blinded, randomized controlled study

2020· article· en· W3036327863 on OpenAlexaff
Jigal Haas, Rawad Bassil, Nivin Samara, Eran Zilberberg, Chaula Mehta, Raoul Orvieto, Robert F. Casper

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgonistFollicular phaseMedicineAndrologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineEndocrinologyGynecologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Does co-administration of GnRH agonist and Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG; dual trigger) in IVF cycles improve the number of mature oocytes and pregnancy outcome compared to hCG alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Using the dual trigger for final follicular maturation increases the number of oocytes, mature oocytes and number of blastocysts (total and top-quality) compared to triggering with hCG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: hCG is used at the end of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as a surrogate LH surge to induce final oocyte maturation. Recently, based on retrospective studies, the co-administration of GnRH agonist and hCG for final oocyte maturation (dual trigger) has been suggested to improve IVF outcome and pregnancy rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single center, randomized controlled, double-blinded clinical trial between May 2016 and June 2018 analyzed by intention to treat (ITT). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: One hundred and fifty-five normal responder patients were randomized either to receive hCG or dual trigger for final oocyte maturation. Data on patients age, BMI, AMH, number of oocytes retrieved, number of metaphase 2 (MII) oocytes, zygotes and blastocysts, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were assessed and compared between the dual trigger group and the hCG group. We performed a planned interim analysis after the recruitment of 50% of the patients. Based on the totality of outcomes at the interim analysis we decided to discontinue further recruitment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: One hundred and fifty-five patients were included in the study. The age (36 years versus 35.3 years P = NS), BMI (24 kg/m2 versus 23.7 kg/m2) and the AMH (20.1 pmol/l versus 22.4 pmol/l) were comparable between the two groups. Based on ITT analysis, the number of eggs retrieved (11.1 versus 13.4, P = 0.002), the MII oocytes (8.6 versus 10.3, P = 0.009), total number of blastocysts (2.9 versus 3.9, P = 0.01) and top-quality blastocysts transferred (44.7% versus 64.9%; P = 0.003) were significantly higher in the dual trigger group compared to the hCG group. The clinical pregnancy rate (24.3% versus 46.1%, OR 2.65 (1.43-1.93), P = 0.009) and the live birth rate per transfer (22% versus 36.2%, OR= 1.98 (1.05-3.75), P = 0.03) were significantly higher in the dual trigger group compared to the hCG group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: None. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The enhanced response observed with the dual trigger might lead to better IVF outcomes were it used more widely. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by TRIO Fertility. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02703584. DATE OF TRIAL REGISTRATION: March 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: May 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations119
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207