MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402838385 · doi:10.31083/j.ceog5109196

Vaginal Progesterone Gel versus Intramuscular Progesterone for Luteal Phase Support in Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Cycles

2024· article· en· W4402838385 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan Ulubaşoğlu, Kadir Bakay, Ali Yavuzcan, Davut Güven, Şafak Hatırnaz, Michael H. Dahan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuteal phaseMedicineProgesterone receptorReproductive tractGynecologyInternal medicineFollicular phase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The purpose of this research is to compare the efficacy of 8% micronized vaginal progesterone gel (VAG) at 180 mg daily versus intramuscular progesterone (IMP) in oil at 100 mg daily for luteal phase support (LPS) after fresh single embryo transfer (SET) in Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) Group 1b patients, and to ascertain whether the type of LPS predicts live birth in these patients. Methods: A total of 2420 assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles performed in Ondokuz Mayıs University IVF Unit were analysed retrospectively. The data of POSEIDON Group 1b (unexpected suboptimal responders) who underwent antagonist in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were included. All patients were categorized into groups according to the form of LPS, specifically VAG and IMP. Pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), spontaneous abortion rate and predictors of live birth (age, infertility duration, body mass index (BMI), type of progesterone used for luteal support, serum day 3 estradiol, serum progesterone on the day of human coryonic gonadotrophin (HCG), total duration of induction, serum estradiol on the day of HCG, the total number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes obtained, average gonadotropin dose per day, total gonadotropin dose administered and total number of embryos retrieved) were analyzed. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the micronized VAG and IMP groups in terms of age (31 (23–35) vs. 27 (23–35), p = 0.319). There were no statistically significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups concerning CPR per transfer (70.6% vs. 75.6%; p = 0.364), ongoing pregnancy per cycle (36.2% vs. 39.5%; p = 0.577), and LBR per cycle (34.4% vs. 36.1%; p = 0.785). The spontaneous abortion rates (36.2% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.921) were similar between VAG and IMP groups. The type of LPS did not emerge as a parameter predicting pregnancy (odds ratio (OR): 0.718, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.652–1.313, p = 0.451), clinical pregnancy (OR: 0.598, 95% CI: 0.592–1.289, p = 0.562) and live birth (OR: 0.802, 95% CI: 0.661–1.202, p = 0.580). The logistic regression analysis aimed at assessing the influence of confounding factors, namely age, BMI, and duration of infertility on pregnancy rate, CPR and LBR, did not reveal statistically significant results (p > 0.05). Conclusions: VAG 180 mg daily provide similar pregnancy outcomes compared to 100 mg daily IMP in POSEIDON Group 1b patients undergoing antagonist fresh IVF/ICSI cycles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.337 · 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.

Study designOther design
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207