Comparative Embryo Development Outcomes following Extending Embryo Culture to Day 6: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Past studies have shown that culturing slow-growing embryos from day 5 to day 6 may increase vitrification yield. This study aims to evaluate if the proportion of embryos eligible for vitrification increases by growing embryos not vitrified by day 5 to day 6. MATERIALS AND METHODS: fertilization (IVF) cycles involving autologous oocytes with at least one viable day 5 embryo were selected for inclusion. We compared embryo developmental outcomes of IVF cycles performed before and after an embryo cryopreservation policy change. Prior to March 2020, good-quality day 5 blastocysts of any stage were eligible for vitrification, and after that date, good-quality expanded blastocysts on either day 5 or day 6 were eligible. The primary outcome is the comparative proportion of embryos eligible for vitrification. The secondary outcome is to identify embryo, maternal and cycle factors that are predictive of day 6 vitrification. RESULTS: A total of 3,438 viable embryos across 679 consecutive IVF cycles were included in this study. After the policy change, we found similar mean proportions of blastocysts eligible for cryopreservation (46.9% per IVF cycle in group 2 vs. 44.4% in group 1, mean difference 0.025, 95% confidence interval -0.021 to 0.071, P=0.28). The mean number of cryopreserved embryos were significantly higher in group 2 (mean 2.2 vs. 1.7 embryos, P=0.007). Factors that predicated an embryo's progression to day 6 included: younger age of egg provider, presence of an early blastocyst on day 5, and cycles involving surgically-retrieved sperm. CONCLUSION: A cryopreservation policy change to include good-quality full and expanded day 6 blastocysts while avoiding to vitrify early blastocysts on day 5 yielded comparable proportions of embryos eligible for vitrification per IVF cycle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".