Embryos With “No Result” After PGT‐A: A Retrospective Analysis of Causative Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: “No result” after PGT‐A is a rare observation. Factors suspected to cause inconclusive diagnoses include poor embryo quality, day of biopsy, biopsy technique, and technical amplification failure due to diluted DNA material. This study aimed to highlight the predisposing factors that could lead to a “no result” observation after PGT‐A. Results: This is a retrospective cohort study involving 177 patients and 1335 blastocysts, 1242 of which comprised the control (result) group and 93 comprised the study (no result) group. The predisposing factors studied were the number of blastocysts available for biopsy, the day of biopsy, the grade of the embryo, the degree of expansion of the blastocyst, and the grade of the trophectoderm on biopsy day. The rate of “no result” embryos did not depend on the degree of expansion of the embryo, the trophectoderm quality, the day of biopsy, or embryo grade ( p = 0.139, 0.34, 0.332, and 0.272, respectively). Regression analysis showed that the studied embryo characteristics were not significant predisposing factors. However, having more blastocysts to biopsy per patient was found to be a significant predictor of “no result” embryos. Conclusion: No clear embryo‐related risk factors could be elucidated; however, the biopsy procedure and sample cellularity seem to be crucial components. In addition, having more embryos per patient to biopsy at a given time might increase the risk of having inconclusive biopsy results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".