MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387973818 · doi:10.1186/s12958-023-01149-8

Live birth rates after resolution of endometrial cavity fluid in frozen embryo transfer cycles

2023· article· en· W4387973818 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Nguyen, Aaron Jackson, Jenna Gale

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Biology and Endocrinology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa Fertility CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryo transferLive birthUterine cavityBlastocyst TransferMedicineGynecologyEndometriumObstetricsBlastocystEmbryoAndrologyBiologyPregnancyUterusInternal medicineEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are live birth rates affected in frozen embryo transfer cycles that develop transient endometrial cavity fluid that resolves by day of embryo transfer? DESIGN: The first frozen blastocyst transfer cycle between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study at an academic fertility center. The presence or absence of endometrial cavity fluid (ECF) detected on initial ultrasound and at time of transfer was recorded. Patients who had persistent ECF at time of transfer were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was live birth rate in the group with resolved ECF relative to the group without ECF. RESULTS: A total of 1034 frozen blastocyst transfer cycles were included, 54 with resolved ECF and 980 without ECF. Adjusted analyses were performed using a log-binomial regression model. Live birth rates were 35.2% and 34.2%, adjusted risk ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.70-1.50] in the two groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Live birth rates in frozen embryo transfer cycles are equivalent between patients with resolved endometrial cavity fluid compared to those who never had endometrial cavity fluid. Our findings suggest that the presence of endometrial cavity fluid is likely not detrimental to live birth rates if the fluid spontaneously resolves by the time of embryo transfer.

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)0.001
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive Biology and EndocrinologySame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207