MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116750141 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmaa052

Is there an association between paternal age and aneuploidy? Evidence from young donor oocyte-derived embryos: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3116750141 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michal Dviri, Svetlana Madjunkova, Alex Koziarz, Mitko Madjunkov, Jordana Mashiach, Erica Nekolaichuk, Kire Trivodaliev, Nasser Al‐Asmar, Sergey I. Moskovtsev, Clifford Librach

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAneuploidyMeta-analysisMedicineAdvanced maternal ageLive birthGynecologyObstetricsSystematic reviewPregnancyMEDLINEBiologyChromosomeGeneticsInternal medicineFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delayed parenthood, by both women and men, has become more common in developed countries. The adverse effect of advanced maternal age on embryo aneuploidy and reproductive outcomes is well known. However, whether there is an association between paternal age (PA) and embryonic chromosomal aberrations remains controversial. Oocyte donation (OD) is often utilized to minimize maternal age effects on oocyte and embryo aneuploidy, thus providing an optimal model to assess the effect of PA. Several studies have revealed a higher than expected rate of aneuploidy in embryos derived from young oocyte donors, which warrants examination as to whether this may be attributed to advanced PA (APA). OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective of this systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis is to evaluate existing evidence regarding an association between PA and chromosomal aberrations in an OD model. SEARCH METHODS: This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through March 2020 using the (MeSH) terms: chromosome aberrations, preimplantation genetic screening and IVF. Original research articles, reporting on the types and/or frequency of chromosomal aberrations in embryos derived from donor oocytes, including data regarding PA, were included. Studies reporting results of IVF cycles using only autologous oocytes were excluded. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted independently by two reviewers using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale. A one-stage IPD meta-analysis was performed to evaluate whether an association exists between PA and aneuploidy. Meta-analysis was performed using a generalized linear mixed model to account for clustering of embryos within patients and clustering of patients within studies. OUTCOMES: The search identified 13 032 references, independently screened by 2 reviewers, yielding 6 studies encompassing a total of 2637 IVF-OD cycles (n = 20 024 embryos). Two 'low' quality studies using FISH to screen 12 chromosomes on Day 3 embryos (n = 649) reported higher total aneuploidy rates and specifically higher rates of trisomy 21, 18 and 13 in men ≥50 years. One 'moderate' and three 'high' quality studies, which used 24-chromosome screening, found no association between PA and aneuploidy in Day 5/6 embryos (n = 12 559). The IPD meta-analysis, which included three 'high' quality studies (n = 10 830 Day 5/6 embryos), found no significant effect of PA on the rate of aneuploidy (odds ratio (OR) 0.97 per decade of age, 95% CI 0.91-1.03), which was robust to sensitivity analyses. There was no association between PA and individual chromosome aneuploidy or segmental aberrations, including for chromosomes X and Y (OR 1.06 per decade of age, 95% CI 0.92-1.21). Monosomy was most frequent for chromosome 16 (217/10802, 2.01%, 95% CI 1.76-2.29%) and trisomy was also most frequent for chromosome 16 (194/10802, 1.80%, 95% CI 1.56-2.06%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: We conclude, based on the available evidence, that APA is not associated with higher rates of aneuploidy in embryos derived from OD. These results will help fertility practitioners when providing preconception counselling, particularly to older men who desire to have a child.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.037
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.101 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Reproduction UpdateSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207