Embryo Culture Media Influence on Live Birth Rate and Birthweight after IVF/ICSI: A Systematic Review Comparing Vitrolife G5 Media to Other Common Culture Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have indicated that culture media vary in efficiency and outcomes, such as live birth rate, birthweight and embryo quality. Does Vitrolife G5 series culture media result in higher live birth rates and birthweight compared to other common culture media? This study is a systematic review based on the PRISMA criteria. Relevant search terms, mesh terms (PubMed and Cochrane) and Emtree terms (Embase) were identified. We searched the literature using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, on November 10, 2019. The inclusion criteria involved published articles in English comparing Vitrolife G5 to other common culture media. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and birthweight. Secondary outcomes were fertilization rate, implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancies and congenital malformations. Of 187 articles screened, 11 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: Five RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies. Only one study reported live birth rate, showing a non-significantly higher live birth rate for Vitrolife G5 media. Birthweight had equivocal results with three of six studies, showing significantly lower (2)/higher (1) birthweights, whereas the others were non-significant. Overall, there were no significant differences concerning secondary outcomes. The results are equivocal, and we need more studies to evaluate culture media and their effect on short- and long-term health.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".