MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323653376 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead045

Does embryo quality at transfer affect obstetric outcomes and placental findings?

2023· article· en· W4323653376 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsEmbryo transferBlastocyst TransferGynecologyPregnancyLive birthRetrospective cohort studyAdvanced maternal ageSingle Embryo TransferEmbryo qualityOvarian reservePlacenta previaReproductive medicineBlastocystFetusPlacentaIn vitro fertilisationEmbryoBiologyInfertilitySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Do obstetric outcomes and placental findings in pregnancies conceived with IVF vary according to embryo quality? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pregnancies following the transfer of lower-quality embryos were associated with a higher rate of low-lying placentas and several adverse placental lesions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A few studies have shown reduced pregnancy and live births rates with poor-quality embryo transfer, yet with comparable obstetric outcomes. None of these studies included placental analysis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study of 641 deliveries of IVF attained pregnancies between 2009 and 2017 was carried out. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Live singleton births after IVF with a single blastocyst transfer at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital were included. Excluded were cycles of oocyte recipients and IVM. We compared pregnancies following the transfer of a poor-quality blastocyst (poor-quality group) or a good-quality blastocyst (controls, good-quality group). During the study period, all placentas from complicated and uncomplicated pregnancies were sent to pathology. Primary outcomes were placental findings, including anatomic, inflammatory, vascular malperfusion, and villous maturation lesions, categorized according to the Amsterdam Placental Workshop Group Consensus. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and perinatal outcomes, adjusted for diminished ovarian reserve, fresh versus frozen transfer, and neonatal gender (as indicated by univariable analysis). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 132 deliveries in the poor-quality group were compared to 509 controls. A diagnosis of diminished ovarian reserve was more common in the poor-quality group than in the control group (14.3% versus 5.5%, respectively, P < 0.001) and more pregnancies in the poor-quality group were following frozen embryo transfer. After adjustment for confounders, poor-quality embryos were associated with a higher rate of low-lying placentas [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.35, 95% CI 1.02-5.41, P = 0.04] and placentas with a higher rate of villitis of unknown etiology (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 1.17-6.66, P = 0.02), distal villous hypoplasia (aOR 3.78, 95% CI 1.20-11.38, P = 0.02), intervillous thrombosis (aOR 2.41, 95% CI 1.39-4.16, P = 0.001), multiple maternal malperfusion lesions (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.06-2.37, P = 0.02), and parenchymal calcifications (aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.07-4.46, P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is limited by its retrospective design and the utilization of two grading systems during the study period. In addition, the sample size was limited to detect differences in outcomes of rarer occurrences. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The placental lesions demonstrated in our study imply an altered immunological response to the implantation of poor-quality embryos. Yet, these findings were not associated with additional adverse obstetric outcomes and merit reaffirmation in a larger cohort. Overall, the clinical findings of our study are reassuring to clinicians and patients for whom the transfer of a poor-quality embryo is necessary. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was obtained for this study. The authors declare no conflict of interest. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207