MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388632153 · doi:10.52609/jmlph.v3i3.92

Prevalence of congenital malformation among neonates born after the use of progesterone for luteal support during IVF and ICSI cycles

2023· article· en· W4388632153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuruq Alkhalaf, Nadeef Alqahtani, Amani Abualnaja, Saud Alhassoun, Alexandra Al-Khatir, Dania Al‐Jaroudi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyLuteal phaseObstetricsInfertilityGynecologyCohortPregnancyPediatricsInternal medicineFollicular phaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This study assessed the prevalence of congenital malformation among neonates born after using progesterone for luteal support in patients undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Department of a tertiary hospital. Two groups were compared: one group received only Cyclogest or Crinone gel, and the other group received a combination of Cyclogest or Crinone gel with Proluton Depot injection Results: A total of 91 patients were included, all of whom took progesterone during their IVF and ICSI cycles. The minimum age of the participants was 21, and the maximum was 41. 16.5% (n=15) patients who received progesterone for luteal support during their IVF and ICSI cycles gave birth to infants with congenital malformation, while 76 (83.5%) did not. The most commonly observed congenital malformation was patent ductus arteriosus, observed in 5 cases (5.49%), followed by delayed speech observed in 2 (2.2%). Brachydactyly, Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, and a number of other conditions were observed at a rate of 1.1%. Ultimately, no significant association was found between the two groups and the incidence of congenital malformations (p = 0.121). Conclusion: Our review indicates that the incidence of congenital anomalies was similar across the different treatment groups.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public HealthSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207