A Comparison of Triple and Double Sperm Washing for Density Gradient Preparation in Intrauterine Insemination Cycles when Overnight Incubation of Specimens Occurred: A Retrospective Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The number of sperm washes to maximize outcomes for intra-uterine insemination has not been well investigated. Therefore, we undertook to compare the pregnancy and live birth rates of triple sperm washing and double sperm washing for density gradient preparation for intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. Methods: A retrospective cohort study including 279 couples (136 couples with triple sperm washing and 143 couples with double sperm washing) with a diagnosis of unexplained infertility and mild male subfertility who had IUI cycles between April 2015 and April 2017 were evaluated. After overnight incubation of the sperm, subjects underwent either traditional double sperm washing or Triple sperm washing which consists of use of a third gradient and spinning procedure to the conventional double gradient sperm washing in order to obtain a higher quantity of motile sperm. Results: Total sperm count after triple washing was higher than double sperm washing (98.25 ± 62.06 vs. 81.08 ± 31.57; p = 0.003). Positive β-hCG test and live birth per cycle were higher in triple sperm washing (25.8% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.009; 18.4% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.039; respectively) than in the double sperm washing group. Conclusions: The use of motile sperms obtained from triple sperm washing may increase the rates of pregnancy and live birth in IUI cycles of women with unexplained and mild male factor infertility. A prospective randomized study should be undertaken to confirm the results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".