Evaluation of endometrial receptivity by ultrasound elastography to predict pregnancy outcome is a non-invasive and worthwhile method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to today, there is no effective, specific and non-invasive evaluation method to assess the endometrial receptivity. This study aimed to establish a non-invasive and effective model with the clinical indicators to evaluate endometrial receptivity. Ultrasound elastography can reflect the overall state of the endometrium. Ultrasonic elastography images from 78 hormonally prepared frozen embryo transfer (FET) patients were assessed in this study. Meanwhile, the clinical indicators reflecting endometrium in the transplantation cycle were collected. The patients were received to transfer only one high-quality blastocyst. A novel code rule that can generate a large number of 0-1 symbols was designed to collect data on different factors. At the same time, a logistic regression model of the machine learning process with an automatic combination of factors was designed for analysis. The logistic regression model was based on age, body mass index, waist-hip ratio, endometrial thickness, perfusion index (PI), resistance index (RI), elastic grade, elastic ratio cutoff value, serum estradiol level and 9 other indicators. The accuracy rate of predicting pregnancy outcome of the logistic regression model was 76.92%. Elastic ultrasound can reflect the endometrial receptivity of patients in FET cycles. We established a prediction model including ultrasound elastography and the model precisely predicted the pregnancy outcome. The predictive accuracy of endometrial receptivity by the predictive model is significantly higher than that of the single clinical indicator. The prediction model by integrating the clinical indicators to evaluate endometrial receptivity may be a non-invasive and worthwhile method for evaluating endometrial receptivity.
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) | 0.000 | 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".