Outcomes of Utimpro Testing Implementation for Patients With Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Single‐Center Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: A proportion of patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure (uRIF) may have endometrial immune dysregulation amenable to treatment. Ultimpro (Matrice lab Innove, Paris, France) is an endometrial immunophenotype test which identifies the absence or presence and type of immune dysregulation, proposing personalized protocol adjustments for a future embryo transfer (ET). METHOD OF STUDY: 2.5-year single-center retrospective cohort analysis of 121 patients who underwent Ultimpro testing as a pilot study (January 2021-May 2023). Group 1 included 93 patients with uRIF, and Group 2 included 28 patients without RIF. Outcomes from Group 1 were compared to Group 3, a control cohort of 94 uRIF patients, outcomes for Group 2 were compared to Canadian average ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) per ET. Primary outcome was pregnancy >32 weeks or live birth. Statistical analyses included the Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the Fisher exact test for categorical data. RESULTS: In Group 1, 46/93 (49.5%) patients had a successful pregnancy compared to control (31/94 [33%], p = 0.026); when stratifying for RIF severity, patients with ≥ 5 failed blastocyst transfers benefitted most from Ultimpro (21/38 [55.3%] vs. control 5/25 (20.0%), p = 0.0084). In Group 2, rates of OPR per ET with Ultimpro recommendations did not differ from outcomes for non-RIF patients (9/28 [32.1%]; 95% CI: 0.15-0.52 vs. 46.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uRIF, our preliminary findings suggest that application of Ultimpro recommendations was associated with a higher rate of successful outcomes; this was not the case for patients without RIF. These findings provide the rationale for an independent randomized controlled trial evaluating the large-scale use of Ultimpro in patients with uRIF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".