MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283729776 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deac148

Pregnancy complications and placental histology following embryo transfer with a thinner endometrium

2022· article· en· W4283729776 on OpenAlexaff
Hadas Ganer Herman, Alexander Volodarsky‐Perel, Tuyet Nhung Ton Nu, Alexandre Machado-Gédéon, Yiming Cui, Jonathan Shaul, Michael H. Dahan

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometriumMedicinePregnancyObstetricsGynecologyEmbryo transferRetrospective cohort studyPregnancy rateBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Are deliveries following IVF with a thinner endometrium associated with adverse perinatal outcomes and placental findings? SUMMARY ANSWER: Live births following IVF with a thinner endometrium are associated with an increased rate of placental-mediated obstetric complications and lower birthweight, while the placentas are notable for gross anatomical and histological malperfusion lesions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Past studies have noted a higher rate of adverse outcomes on deliveries following IVF with a thinner endometrium, mainly placental-associated complications. However, no study to date has investigated placental histopathology in such cases. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1057 deliveries following IVF, between 2009 and 2017. All placentas were sent to pathology irrelevant of pregnancy complication status, per protocol at our institution. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Live singleton births from a tertiary university hospital after IVF were compared between patients for whom embryo transfer was performed with an endometrium <9 mm (thinner endometrium group) and patients with an endometrium ≥9 mm (control group). Placental pathologic findings were categorized according to the Amsterdam Placental Workshop Group Consensus. Outcomes were placental findings, including anatomic, inflammatory, vascular malperfusion and villous maturation lesions, as well as obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Continuous and categorical variables were compared as appropriate, and multivariate regression and linear analyses were employed to control for confounders. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total 292 cases in the thinner endometrium group, and 765 in the control group were compared. Maternal demographics were non-significant between the groups, except for main fertility indication was more commonly diminished reserve in patients with a thinner endometrium and less commonly male factor, P = 0.003. Higher rates of fresh transfers were noted in the control group, while the thinner endometrium group was notable for higher rates of blastocyte transfers. After adjustment for confounders, deliveries in the thinner endometrium group were associated with an overall higher rate of main placental-mediated complications, 22.9% versus 15.2%, P = 0.003, and significantly lower birthweight, β -100.76 g (-184.4-(-17.0)). Placentas in the thinner endometrium group were notable for reduced thickness and a higher rate of bilobated placentas. Placental histology in the thinner endometrium group demonstrated a higher rate of maternal malperfusion lesions. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was limited by its retrospective design and lack of data regarding prior uterine surgery. In addition, sample size was limited for detection of differences in outcomes of rarer occurrence and for analysis as per a stricter definition of thin endometrium. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Excess obstetric risks should be taken into consideration while planning an embryo transfer with a thinner endometrium. Further studies are needed to assess the yield of cycle cancellation and the effect of potential preventive measures such as Micropirin treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was used and the authors report no conflicting interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207