MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402567256 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-080133

Cumulative live birth rate of a blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer policy during in vitro fertilisation in women with a good prognosis: multicentre randomised controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4402567256 on OpenAlexaff
Simone Cornelisse, Kathrin Fleischer, Lucette van der Westerlaken, Jan‐Peter de Bruin, C.G. Vergouw, Carolien A.M. Koks, Josien G. Derhaag, Jantien Visser, Jannie van Echten‐Arends, Els Slappendel, Brigitte Arends, Moniek van der Zanden, Angelique van Dongen, Janneke Brink-van der Vlugt, Marcella de Hundt, Max HJN Curfs, Harold R Verhoeve, Maaike Traas-Hofmans, Yvonne Wurth, Petra Manger, Q. D. Pieterse, D.D.M. Braat, Madelon van Wely, Liliana Ramos, Sebastiaan Mastenbroek

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsOttawa Fertility Centre
FundersZonMw
KeywordsEmbryo transferBlastocyst TransferLive birthEmbryo cryopreservationBlastocystIn vitro fertilisationGynecologyPregnancyMedicinePregnancy rateEmbryoAndrologyConfidence intervalObstetricsBiologyEmbryogenesisInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To evaluate whether embryo transfers at blastocyst stage improve the cumulative live birth rate after oocyte retrieval, including both fresh and frozen-thawed transfers, and whether the risk of obstetric and perinatal complications is increased compared with cleavage stage embryo transfers during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting 21 hospitals and clinics in the Netherlands, 18 August 2018 to 17 December 2021. Participants 1202 women with at least four embryos available on day 2 after oocyte retrieval were randomly assigned to either blastocyst stage embryo transfer (n=603) or cleavage stage embryo transfer (n=599). Interventions In the blastocyst group and cleavage group, embryo transfers were performed on day 5 and day 3, respectively, after oocyte retrieval, followed by cryopreservation of surplus embryos. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis, with secondary analyses as per protocol. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate per oocyte retrieval, including results of all frozen-thawed embryo transfers within a year after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included cumulative rates of pregnancy, pregnancy loss, and live birth after fresh embryo transfer, number of embryo transfers needed, number of frozen embryos, and obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Results The cumulative live birth rate did not differ between the blastocyst group and cleavage group (58.9% (355 of 603) v 58.4% (350 of 599; risk ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.22). The blastocyst group showed a higher live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer (1.26, 1.00 to 1.58), lower cumulative pregnancy loss rate (0.68, 0.51 to 0.89), and lower mean number of embryo transfers needed to result in a live birth (1.55 v 1.82; P<0.001). The incidence of moderate preterm birth (32 to <37 weeks) in singletons was higher in the blastocyst group (1.87, 1.05 to 3.34). Conclusion Blastocyst stage embryo transfers resulted in a similar cumulative live birth rate to cleavage stage embryo transfers in women with at least four embryos available during IVF treatment. Trial registration International Clinical Trial Registry Platform NTR7034.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207