Prevalence, causes, and impact of non-visualized pregnancy losses in a recurrent pregnancy loss population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: Does the occurrence of non-visualized pregnancy loss (NVPL) affect future reproductive outcomes in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The number of previous NVPLs is a significant predictor of subsequent live birth in patients with RPL. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The number of preceding miscarriages is a strong indicator for future reproductive outcomes. However, NVPL particularly has been sparsely addressed in previous literature. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1981 patients attending a specialized recurrent pregnancy loss clinic (RPL) from January 2012 to March 2021. A total of 1859 patients met the inclusion criteria of the study and were included in the analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients with a history of RPL, defined as ≥2 pregnancy losses before 20 weeks gestation, who attended a specialized RPL clinic in a tertiary care center were included. Patients' evaluation included parental karyotyping, antiphospholipid antibodies screening, uterine cavity assessment with hysterosalpingography (HSG) or hysteroscopy, maternal thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) testing, and serum hemoglobin A1C testing. Other investigations were performed only when indicated such as testing for inherited thrombophilias, serum prolactin, oral glucose tolerance test, and endometrial biopsy. Patients were divided into three groups; patients who experienced NVPLs only (pure NVPLs group), patients with only visualized pregnancy losses (pure VPLs group), and patients with history of both NVPLs and VPLs (mixed group). Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Significance was detected when P values <0.05. A logistic regression model was used to determine the impact of NVPLs and VPLs numbers on any live birth subsequent to the initial RPL clinic visit. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The prevalence of patients with pure NVPLs, pure VPLs, and mixed losses was 14.7% (274/1859), 31.8% (591/1859), and 53.5% (994/1859), respectively. The prevalence of acquired and congenital uterine anomalies diagnosed by HSG or hysteroscopy was significantly different between pure NVPLs, pure VPLs, and mixed groups (16.8% versus 23.7% versus. 20.7%, respectively P = 0.05). There were no significant differences in the results of other RPL investigations or baseline demographics between the three groups. A logistic regression model controlling for maternal age at the initial RPL clinic visit and the follow-up duration showed that the numbers of NVPLs (odds ratio (OR): 0.77, CI: 0.68-0.88) and VPLs (OR: 0.75, CI: 0.64-0.86) are strong predictors for subsequent live births after the initial RPL clinic visit (P < 0.001). The odds of having a live birth decreased by 23% and 25% with each additional NVPL and VPL, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study may be limited by its retrospective design. Some of our data, including home pregnancy tests and obstetric history, are based on patient self-reporting, which could have overstated the true prevalence of NVPLs. Another limitation is the lack of available live birth data for all patients at the time of the analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine and analyze the reproductive outcomes of patients with pure NVPLs in a substantial cohort of patients with RPL. NVPLs seem to affect future live births the same way as clinical miscarriages, which supports their inclusion in RPL definitions. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported in part by Canadian Institute Heath Grant (CIHR): Reference Number/W11-179912 and Women's Health Research Institute (WHRI), Vancouver, BC, Canada. M.A.B: Research grants from Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) and Ferring Pharmaceutical. M.A.B. is on the advisory board for AbbVie and Baxter. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".