Inconsistencies between endometrial receptivity assay and Adhesio-RT test for the window of implantation in women with repetitive failed donor oocyte embryo transfers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two commercially available second-generation endometrial receptivity assays using microarray analysis or next-generation sequencing are available in the market: endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) (Igenomix Laboratories) and Adhesio RT (OVO laboratories, Montreal, Canada). Little is known about how the results of these tests compare. We present a case of a subject with repetitive failed donor oocyte embryo transfer, who underwent evaluation of endometrial receptivity using both the Adhesio and ERA tests. These two tests did not provide consistent results, with ERA suggesting receptivity on day 5 of progesterone treatment and Adhesio suggesting receptivity on the eighth day. An ERA test subsequently performed on the eighth day of progesterone treatment was suggestive of post-receptive endometrium during the same time frame that Adhesio was suggestive of receptive endometrium. In conclusion, it is important to note that these two tests may not provide consistent results in at least some subjects. Therefore, intertest validity studies are recommended.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".