MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399621411 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2024.102586

The Blastulation Rate Is Negatively Associated With Euploid Rate

2024· article· en· W4399621411 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ido Feferkorn, Jason Raina, Eva Suarthana, Mohammad H. Al‐Bar, Asangla Ao, Xiaoyun Zhang, Li Zhang, Einav Kadour‐Peero, Ranit Hizkiyahu, Kimberly Liu, William Buckett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastulaPloidyBiologyGeneticsEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To study the association between the blastulation rate, the presence of 1 pronucleus (1PN) zygotes, and the ploidy of the cohort of blastocysts. METHODS: A cross-sectional study using the existing databases of 2 university fertility centres in Canada. We included 345 cycles from 235 couples who underwent next-generation sequencing preimplantation genetic testing for the detection of aneuploidy in the study. RESULTS: A total of 1456 blastocysts were biopsied. In multivariate analysis, only female age and the number of 1PN/2PN embryos showed a negative association with euploid ratio. Surprisingly, when the analysis was limited to cycles with no delayed blastulation, the blastulation rate was also negatively associated with the euploid ratio. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds some light on the stages of early embryo development. Further study on the mechanisms governing embryo development and the different cell cycle checkpoints in embryo development is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada→Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→