Approaches to frozen embryo transfer: a Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations, drawn exclusively from recent randomized control trials, for the clinical management of frozen embryo transfers (FET). In Canada, the incidence of freeze-all cycles has increased from 24.0% to 78.4% over the last decade. While a freeze-all strategy can be a pivotal tool for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, the available data do not support its routine use for improving live birth rates, reducing pregnancy loss or enhancing obstetric outcomes in the general IVF population. Similarly, ovulatory FET cycles do not offer advantages over artificial FET cycles for live birth or pregnancy loss, and current evidence remains conflicting for obstetric and perinatal outcomes. The route of progesterone administration in artificial FET cycles does not significantly affect live birth or pregnancy loss rates. FET approaches should be individualized based on patient characteristics and clinical context, and further research is necessary to optimize outcomes and inform best practices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".