Storage Time of Cryopreserved Embryos and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Cryopreservation techniques have become an essential part of assisted reproduction technology. Embryos may be cryopreserved for several years before transfer, and the safety of long-term cryopreservation needs to be considered. This dose-response meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether there were dose-response relationships between the storage time of cryopreserved embryos and pregnancy outcomes such as survival rate, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and congenital malformation rate. Methods After searching the databases PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, CCRT and related reviews up until June 4, 2020, seven studies were included for analysis. Two reviewers extracted the relevant information and independently assessed the study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Potential linear or non-linear dose-response relationships were assessed with a random-effect dose-response meta-analysis. Results No dose-response association was found between duration of embryo cryostorage and survival rate, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy rate or congenital malformation rate. Conclusion The interval between the start of embryo cryopreservation and frozen/thawed embryo transfer does not influence pregnancy outcomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".