Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in fresh and frozen cycles using blastocysts derived from ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes using fresh and vitrified/warmed blastocysts obtained from ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in controlled trials versus follitropin alfa. METHODS: This investigation evaluated the outcome from 2719 fresh and frozen cycles performed in 1326 IVF/ICSI patients who could start up to three ovarian stimulations in the ESTHER-1 (NCT01956110) and ESTHER-2 (NCT01956123) trials, covering 1012 fresh cycles and 341 frozen cycles with follitropin delta and 1015 fresh cycles and 351 frozen cycles with follitropin alfa. Of the 1326 first cycle patients, 513 continued to cycle 2 and 188 to cycle 3, and 441 patients started frozen cycles after the fresh cycles. Pregnancy follow-up was continued until 4 weeks after birth. RESULTS: The overall cumulative take-home baby rate after up to three stimulation cycles was 60.3% with follitropin delta and 60.7% with follitropin alfa (-0.2% [95% CI: -5.4%; 5.0%]), of which the relative contribution was 72.8% from fresh cycles and 27.2% from frozen cycles in each treatment group. Across the fresh cycles, the ongoing implantation rate was 32.1% for follitropin delta and 32.1% for follitropin alfa, while it was 27.6% and 27.8%, respectively, for the frozen cycles. Major congenital anomalies among the live-born neonates up until 4 weeks were reported at an incidence of 1.6% with follitropin delta and 1.8% with follitropin alfa (-0.2% [95% CI: -1.9%; 1.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: Based on comparative trials, the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes from fresh and frozen cycles provide reassuring data on the efficacy and safety of follitropin delta. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01956110 registered on 8 October 2013; NCT01956123 registered on 8 October 2013.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".