MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411498020 · doi:10.1007/s10815-025-03556-9

The effect of breastfeeding on treatment outcomes in in-vitro fertilization frozen embryo transfer cycles

2025· article· en· W4411498020 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alyssa Hochberg, Nir Kugelman, Uri Amikam, Victoria Bleau, Tzippy Shochat, Eva Suarthana, William Buckett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingMedicineEmbryo transferLive birthObstetricsReproductive medicineOdds ratioPregnancyIn vitro fertilisationMiscarriageFertilityGynecologyConfidence intervalLogistic regressionPopulationInternal medicinePediatricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: While breastfeeding is known to impact unassisted conception, its effect on fertility treatment outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of breastfeeding on in-vitro fertilization (IVF) frozen embryo transfer (FET) outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study at a single, urban, Canadian Fertility center, including women who underwent an FET(2015-2023). Breastfeeding women (study group) were compared to non-breastfeeding controls, matched 1:1 for age, treatment protocol, and year. We compared outcomes between the two groups. Primary outcomes were pregnancy rate (PR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR),and live birth rate (LBR). Secondary outcomes included peak endometrial thickness prior to progesterone supplementation, biochemical PR and miscarriage rate. Multivariate logistic regression controlled for confounders. Two sub-analyses within the breastfeeding group examined treatment outcomes by breastfeeding duration (≤ 12 months; > 12 months) and prolactin levels (normal;elevated). RESULTS: Overall, 118 women met inclusion criteria (59 breastfeeding, 59 controls). Breastfeeding women, compared to controls,were characterized by a younger median age at initial oocyte collection (34.8 years(31.9-37.11) vs. 35.85 years(33.2-39.2),p = 0.044); higher median parity (1(1-1) vs. 0(0-1), p < 0.0001);and higher rates of irregular cycles (35.59% vs. 18.64%,p = 0.016);and elevated prolactin levels (16.95% vs. 1.69%,p = 0.003). Utilizing multivariate logistic regression adjusting for breastfeeding status,parity, age at initial oocyte collection, and cycle regularity, only maternal age at oocyte collection was associated with PR (adjusted odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.94,p = 0.003). Both sub-analyses revealed similar PRs, CPRs and LBRs between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding during an FET cycle was not associated with treatment outcomes, including PR,CPR, or LBR, providing cautious reassurance to physicians and patients.

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)0.008
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 Assisted Reproduction and GeneticsSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207