Histopathological profile of women who had previously failed in-vitro fertilization and the association to the outcome in the subsequent in-vitro fertilization cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the endometrial histopathological profile of patients undergoing curettage and the association of the histopathological profile with the pregnancy outcome during the subsequent in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 248 women with at least one failed attempt of IVF and who underwent curettage and a subsequent IVF were included. Demographic data, endometrial histopathological records, stimulation information, and pregnancy outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The histopathological analysis of endometrial tissues showed that 130 women (52.4%) had endometrial pathologies. Of these women, 103 (41.5%) had endometrial polyps, 22 (8.9%) had chronic endometritis, and five (2.0%) had both polyps and endometritis. No statistical difference was observed between the normal histopathology group and the abnormal histopathology group in the outcome of the subsequent IVF cycle. Subgroup analyses were performed to further characterize and compare women with normal histopathology and women with endometrial polyps (polyp subgroup) or chronic endometritis (endometritis subgroup). No statistical differences were found among the three groups in the rates of pregnancy (44.1% vs. 49.5% vs. 45.5%, P=0.72), biochemical pregnancy loss (13.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 20.0%, P=0.86), clinical pregnancy loss (25.0% vs. 31.4% vs. 30.0%, P=0.77), and live birth (27.1% vs. 26.2% vs. 22.7%, P=0.91) during the subsequent IVF cycle. CONCLUSION: Women with previously failed IVF and abnormal endometrial histopathology treated with curettage had the same outcome in the subsequent IVF cycle as women with normal endometrial histopathology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".