Live birth rates after resolution of endometrial cavity fluid in frozen embryo transfer cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".