EP32.02: Is maximalisation of the ovum pick‐up procedure beneficial for the outcome of assisted reproductive technology cycles?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine if aspiration of more oocytes than the sonographic assessment of antral follicle count (AFC) is beneficial for the current (pregnancy/livebirth rates) and future products of an ART cycle. Data of the first oocyte aspiration for ICSI performed between 2018-2022 in attempt to conceive (ICSI, n = 399) or for planned oocyte vitrification (fertility preservation FP, n = 283) was retrieved. The AFC was determined by professional sonographers using a 9 MHz transvaginal ultrasound probe. The most adjacent measurement to the stimulation initiation was used. Each group was divided into two subgroups according to their ‘oocyte/AFC index’ (OAFCI): <1 and 1. The stimulation parameters, number of aspirated oocytes, their maturity rate, number of cryopreserved oocytes/embryos, clinical pregnancy (CPR) and livebirth rates (LBR) were compared between the subgroups. Oocyte maturity was unaffected by the OAFCI in the ICSI group, but was lower in FP group at OAFC≥1 (0.79 vs. 0.84 p = 0.005). OAFCI≥1 was associated with a higher number of cryopreserved embryos (ICSI, 3.9 vs. 2.3, p < 0.001) and a higher number of vitrified oocytes (FP, 13.4 vs. 6.4 p < 0.001). The OAFCI had no impact on CPR (20% vs. 25%, p = 0.27) and LBR (19.9% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.33). On multivariate analysis controlling for age, gonadotrophin dosage and duration of stimulation, OAFC≥1 was associated with a higher number of cryopreserved embryos (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3, p < 0.001) in the ICSI group and higher vitrified oocytes (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, p < 0.001) and lower maturity index (aOR 0.1, 95% CI 0.03-0.51, p < 0.001) in the FP group. Aspirating more oocytes than the AFC does not influence the outcome of the fresh cycle but harbours the possibility to cryopreserve more oocytes and embryos. This might translate into higher cumulative pregnancy rates later on.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".