MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410421480 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2025.102926

Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes in Ovulatory Frozen Transfer Cycles With or Without Trigger and Non-Ovulatory FET Cycles: A Retrospective Study

2025· article· en· W4410421480 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kusha Shirani, Mehrnoosh Faghih, Stacy Deniz, Shilpa Amin, Megan Karnis, Michael S. Neal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsOntario Clinical Oncology GroupMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyRetrospective cohort studyObstetricsGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This study aimed to evaluate and compare the pregnancy outcomes in ovulatory frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, with or without an ovulation trigger, against non-ovulatory FET cycles. The goal was to identify whether utilizing the natural ovulatory process; either spontaneous or medically induced; yields better clinical outcomes rather than relying entirely on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for endometrial preparation, focusing on pregnancy rates, ongoing clinical pregnancies, and early pregnancy losses. Design A single centre retrospective cohort analysis. Methods A total of 1490 first-time FET cycles were analyzed. Patients undergoing a first FET cycle with a single vitrified and warmed blastocyst for transfer were stratified based on their FET preparation cycle for comparison. Patients were grouped into non-ovulatory FET cycles (Group A, n=1061), ovulatory FET cycles with ovulation trigger (Group B, n=328), and ovulatory FET cycles without trigger (Group C, n=101). The primary outcomes assessed were pregnancy rates (determined by positive βhCG) and ongoing pregnancy rates (based on detecting a fetal heartbeat at 7 weeks). Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rates. Statistical significance was evaluated using ANOVA and chi-square tests ( P < 0.05). Results Pregnancy rates were comparable between all groups, with 50.3% in Group A, 54.9% in Group B, and 52.5% in Group C ( P = 0.35). Ovulatory cycles (Groups B and C) showed significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rates compared to non-ovulatory cycles ( P = 0.02). The miscarriage rate was higher in Group A (17.0%) compared to Group B (8.9%) and Group C (11.3%), though this difference did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.07). Conclusions Ovulatory FET cycles, whether triggered or not, result in significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rates and lower miscarriage rates compared to non-ovulatory cycles. These findings support the preservation of the natural ovulatory process, either through spontaneous or induced ovulation, as a key factor in improving clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). The study highlights the potential advantages of modified natural cycles over artificial cycles that rely solely on exogenous hormone supplementation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207