Does it affect the live birth rates to have a maximum endometrial thickness of 7, 8, or 9 mm in in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of endometrial thickness (EMT) on live birth rates (LBR) in women with endometrial lining between 7.0-9.9 mm. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included women who underwent fresh and frozen embryo transfers between 2008 and 2018, grouped according to their maximum EMT; group 1, 7.0-7.9 mm; group 2, 8.0-8.9 mm; and group 3, 9.0-9.9 mm and underwent blastocyst transfer. RESULTS: The study included 7,091 in-vitro fertilization cycles: 1,385 in group 1, 3,000 in group 2, and 2,706 in group 3. The combined LBR was 22.2%. The mean age of women at oocyte retrieval day was 36.7±4.5 years. There was no difference in female age at oocyte retrieval or in the quality of embryos transferred between the three groups. Group 1 had more diagnoses of diminished ovarian reserve (25.8% vs. 19.5% and 19.1%; p<0.001) and less male factor infertility compared with group 2 and 3, respectively (25.0% vs. 28.8% and 28.5%; P=0.024). LBR was higher with increasing endometrial thickness, group 2 vs. group 1 (22.0% vs. 17.4%; P=0.0004), group 3 vs. group 1 (25.0% vs. 17.2%; p<0.001), and group 3 vs. group 2 (25.0% vs. 22.0%; P=0.008). After controlling for confounding factors, these three groups did not differ in LBR (group 1 vs. group 2, odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.4; P=0.54 and group 1 vs. group 3, OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P=0.24). CONCLUSION: Live birth rates in women with endometrial thickness between 7.0-9.9 mm were not affected by different cut-offs when blastocyst transfer was performed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".