Outcomes of donor versus partner sperm in intrauterine insemination in women aged 38 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare pregnancy rates of donor versus partner sperm in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles in women aged 38 years and above. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from 944 women aged 38-43 years old who underwent a combined 1596 IUI cycles at an academic fertility clinic in Montreal, Canada between February 2009 to April 2018. RESULTS: Partner sperm was used in 1421 cycles (89.0%), and donor sperm was inseminated in 175 cycles (11.0%). Mean ages of the women were 39.8 (±1.5) and 40.2 (±1.6) years in the partner and donor insemination groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Positive serum (β human chorionic gonadotropin) pregnancy rate in the partner sperm group was 9.0% (n = 128) whereas that in the donor insemination group was 9.7% (n = 17) (P = 0.759). Clinical pregnancy rates were 5.8% (n = 83) and 8.0% (n = 14) in the respective groups (P = 0.260). There were five multiple gestation (twin) pregnancies in the cohort, three in those undergoing IUI with partner sperm and two in those undergoing IUI with donor sperm. CONCLUSION: In women aged 38-43 years undergoing IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation, using donor sperm, compared with partner sperm, did not increase rate of pregnancy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".