MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392769605 · doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100334

The difference in early trimester fetal growth between singletons after frozen embryo transfer and fresh embryo transfer

2024· article· en· W4392769605 on OpenAlexaff
Huiming Yang, Haozhe Miao, Mengfei Yin, Yixuan Wang, Dingying Zhao, Min Yang, Jialin Zou, Wenwen Zhang, Lingling Zhang, Yue Wang, Ze Wang, Yunhai Yu, Daimin Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueAJOG Global Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaShandong University
KeywordsCrown-rump lengthEmbryo transferObstetricsPregnancyBirth weightGestational ageMedicineFetusGestational sacGestationLive birthSingle Embryo TransferGynecologyEmbryoBiologyFirst trimester

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frozen embryo transfer resulted in a higher birth weight and an increased risk of macrosomia compared with fresh embryo transfer. However, the mechanism was still unclear. When did the impact of frozen embryo transfer on fetal growth begin was unknown. Crown-rump length at 11-13 weeks had been regarded as a good indicator of fetal growth at the first trimester and had been used for gestational age calculation in women with uncertain last menstrual period. To evaluate the association between frozen embryo transfer and early fetal growth, particularly the crown-rump length, compared with fresh embryo transfer. The secondary objective was to investigate the potential correlation between the crown-rump length and birth weight. This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at the Reproductive Medical Center of Shandong University. A total of 4949 patients who obtained singleton pregnancy after frozen embryo transfer and 1793 patients who got singleton pregnancy after fresh embryo transfer during January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2022 were included. The primary outcome was the crown-rump length measured via ultrasound at 11-13 weeks gestation. The secondary outcomes were perinatal outcomes including birth weight and the risk of large for gestational age, small for gestational age, macrosomia, low birth weight and premature delivery. Multivariable linear regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders of crown-rump length. A total of 6,742 live singleton births after frozen embryo transfer or fresh embryo transfer were included in this study. In the univariable analysis, the frozen embryo transfer group had a larger crown-rump length (5.75±0.53cm vs. 5.57±0.48cm, P<0.001), and an increased risk of larger-than-expected crown-rump length (13.5% vs.11.2%, P=0.013) compared with the fresh embryo transfer group. After adjusting for confounders in multivariable linear regression models, frozen embryo transfer was still associated with a larger crown-rump length (adjusted odds ratio: 0.020, 95% confidence intervals: 0.133-0.212, P<0.001). When subgrouped by fetal gender, the crown-rump length of the frozen embryo transfer group was larger than the fresh embryo transfer group in both male fetus and female fetus. The crown-rump length was also consistently larger in the frozen embryo transfer group than the fresh embryo transfer group in subgroups of the peak estradiol levels. The comparisons among different crown-rump length groups showed that smaller-than-expected crown-rump length was associated with increased risks of small for gestational age (6.3% vs.3.0%, P<0.001) and preterm delivery (9.6% vs.6.7%, P=0.004) than normal crown-rump length. Frozen embryo transfer was associated with a larger crown-rump length compared with fresh embryo transfer, suggesting that the effect of frozen embryo transfer on fetal growth may begin at early trimester. Suboptimal fetal growth in the first trimester may be associated with low birth weight and premature delivery.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAJOG Global ReportsSame topicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207