MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411748825 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf097.773

P-467 Should we close the book of endometrial scratching?

2025· article· en· W4411748825 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hassan Hamze, K Karen, Wadad Alameh, M Chow-Shi, Roland Antaki, Louise Lapensée

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScratchingMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Does endometrial scratching improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination? Summary answer Endometrial scratching might negatively impact pregnancy rate if done in luteal phase in IUI cycles. What is known already The role of Endometrial Scratching, also known, has been a debate for many years, with conflicting results. While some studies showed better implantation rates, others showed no benefit of endometrial injury on pregnancy outcome. It is believed that the inflammation caused by endometrial injury can lead to the release of growth factors and cytokines that may improve embryo implantation. Study design, size, duration This randomised controlled trial was conducted at the ovo clinic, a university-affiliated fertility center in Montreal, from May 2018 to March 2022. A total of 394 participants were recruited for the study and were randomized into the control group (n = 196) and the scratching group (n = 198) Participants/materials, setting, methods Couples with unexplained infertility and an indication for IUI were recruited. In the study group, endometrial scratching was performed during the follicular phase. All patients were followed for 3 consecutive months following randomisation. Ovarian stimulation was done for 5 days from day 2 or 3 of the cycle, and once the dominant follicle reached 18 mm and endometrial thickness reached at least 6.5 mm, HCG trigger was given and iui was done 36 hours later. Main results and the role of chance The live birth rate analysis of the post-insemination pregnancies over the 3 cycles following the ES, resulted in a risk ratio of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.30-0.92), indicating a significant reduction in live birth rates in the scratching group compared to the control group (p = 0.03) The compilation of results over the 3-month period shows that out of the 302 IUIs performed in the scratching group, 10.6% IUIs resulted in a pregnancy, compared to 12.4% in the control group (p = 0.54) Among these pregnancies, 40.6% resulted in miscarriages in the ES group, compared to 18.2% in the control group, the results were statistically significant(p = 0.04). Limitations, reasons for caution Main weakness of this study was that the causes of infertility were not correlated to the outcomes observed. Wider implications of the findings This study wold implicate that endometrial scratching should be aborted during intrauterine insemination cycles as it has negative effects on the outcomes. Trial registration number Yes

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueHuman ReproductionSame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207