High Prevalence of Chronic Endometritis in Women Diagnosed With Hydrosalpinx Before In Vitro Fertilization Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of chronic endometritis (CE) in women with hydrosalpinx undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF), to a control group without hydrosalpinx. DESIGN: A bicentric historical prospective case-control study, between June 2017 and December 2021. SETTING: Angers and Montreal university hospitals. PATIENT(S): In the Hydrosalpinx (H) group, we included all women undergoing IVF for various indications, and who were diagnosed with a hydrosalpinx before or during the cycle. In the control (C) group, we included women without hydrosalpinx, undergoing IVF for male factor infertility, or following bilateral tubal ligation. INTERVENTION(S): A laparoscopy was scheduled for the removal of the hydrosalpinx, and an endometrial biopsy was performed concomitantly to rule out CE. In the C group, an endometrial biopsy was performed in the clinic. CE diagnosis was confirmed using immunohistochemistry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Our primary endpoint was the rate of positive biopsies for CE. Ninety-four patients were included, 62 in the H group and 32 in the C group. Mean age was 32.1 ± 5.1 years. The prevalence of CE was significantly higher in the H group compared to the C group (41.9% (26/62) vs 15.6% (5/32) (p = .01)). Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of hydrosalpinx was an independent risk factor of CE (aOR = 3.93 (1.31-11.81)), whether the hydrosalpinx was unilateral (aOR = 4.39 (1.32-14.61)) or bilateral (aOR = 3.52 (1.01-11.99)). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant increase in the prevalence of CE in women with hydrosalpinx undergoing IVF, whether the hydrosalpinx was unilateral or bilateral.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".