MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381734593 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead093.090

O-076 Update on the International Registry of Mosaic Embryo Transfers

2023· article· en· W4381734593 on OpenAlexaff
Francesca Spinella, Ermanno Greco, I Listorti, Pierfrancesco Greco, Anıl Biricik, Matteo Surdo, Gustavo Javier Meschino, Alessandra Alteri, V. Bianchi, Iris Paula Garrido Bravo, Svetlana Madjunkova, Andria G. Besser, Manuel Viotti

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryoBlastocystBiologyEmbryo transferIn vitro fertilisationMosaicAndrologyBiopsyPloidyAneuploidyPreimplantation genetic diagnosisPregnancyGynecologyGeneticsMedicineEmbryogenesisChromosomePathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Which are the results obtained by the International Registry of Mosaic Embryo Transfers? Summary answer An update of clinical outcomes and post-natal results of mosaic embryos with low and high-level of mosaicism is provided. What is known already Chromosomal mosaic embryos are characterized by the presence of chromosomally different cell lines within the same embryo. While the transfer of these embryos is now offered as an option for women who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), several concerns remain. For instance, the limited data on pregnancy outcome and the possibility that intra-biopsy mosaicism in the TE is a poor predictor of the ploidy status of the ICM. Therefore, some argue that mosaicism should be not reported until a clear classification of such embryos in relation to their reproductive potential has been defined. Study design, size, duration We collected the clinical outcomes of 2045 mosaic embryos transferred in women who undergoing IVF between May 2019-May 2022. All embryos were cultured to blastocyst stage; trophectoderm (TE) biopsy was performed on Day-5 of development or Day6/7 for slow-growing embryos. The clinical outcomes obtained after the transfer of mosaic embryos with the different chromosomal constitutions were compared. Prenatal and post-natal outcome was collected for available cases. Participants/materials, setting, methods Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) was performed using high-resolution next-generation sequencing (NGS) methodology. TE biopsies were classified as mosaic if they had 20%-80% abnormal cells. For statistical analysis, mosaic embryos were divided into groups based on mosaic levels and chromosomal constitution detected in TE: single mosaic aneuploidy (monosomy/trisomy; SM), double mosaic chromosomes (monosomy/trisomy or combination, DM), complex mosaic aneuploidy (>2 different aneuploidies; CM) and mosaic segmental aneuploidy (single and double deletion/insertion >5Mb, MS). Main results and the role of chance Embryos classified as ‘low-mosaic’ by NGS-based PGT-A have a higher likelihood of achieving implantation compared to ‘high-mosaic’ embryos (48% vs. 39.%; p < 0.05 ), as well as ongoing pregnancy/live birth (40% vs. 29%; p < 0.05). Chromosomal composition of mosaicism abnormalities dictates the success rate of mosaic embryo transfers, with low and high segmental mosaics being preferable over low- and high-mosaics involving whole chromosomes. For 550/670 pregnancies, parental tests and post-natal data were available. The majority (99.75%) of the babies were largely healthy by routine physical inspection by neonatologists (no gross abnormalities in babies from mosaic embryos, n = 495). Prenatal testing performed on pregnancies from mosaic embryo transfers were generally normal. The mosaicism detected at the embryonic stage by PGT-A was reflected in prenatal testing in only 5 out of 550 pregnancies (0.9%) in which the mosaicism identified with PGT-A at the blastocyst stage was reflected in gestation by prenatal chromosomal testing as true fetal mosaicism. Limitations, reasons for caution Additional clinical data must be obtained to evaluate the contribution of each different chromosome before this approach can be evaluated as an additional tool to choose mosaic embryos for transfer. Wider implications of the findings The International Registry of Mosaic Embryo transfers continues to grow in sample size, in turn increasing the power of analysis. The findings of the mosaic embryo transfer registry can help educate the management and selection of embryos in the clinic. Trial registration number Not applicable

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207