MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6958625449 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21065613

Activated protein C resistance impact on Syrian candidates for in vitro fertilisation and the benefit of anticoagulation therapy: a retrospective cohort study

2022· article· en· W6958625449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivated protein C resistanceThrombophiliaRetrospective cohort studyOdds ratioAspirinPregnancyIn vitro fertilisationCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activated protein C resistance (APCR) is a common thrombophilia, caused mainly by a mutation. The impact of APCR on the efficacy of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) are still unclear, and no solid recommendations for its management were published. To investigate the effect of APCR on IVF outcomes and assess the efficacy of our management protocol, we retrospectively scanned the medical records of women who were tested with APCR assay in 2019 at our fertility centre. The 66 women (12%) positive for APCR had lower odds of reaching clinical pregnancies after IVF 0.18 [95% CI: 0.07–0.47] and fewer live births. The administration of low-molecular-weight heparin and aspirin associated with more implantation in treated compared to untreated APCR-positive women with an odds ratio of 43.2 [7.51–248.6]. In conclusion, APCR negatively affects the number of clinical pregnancies after IVF, but anticoagulation therapy can mitigate this effect and significantly increase clinical pregnancies.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? The evidence about the impact of APCR on IVF outcomes is still inconclusive. According to the Canadian guideline, routine screening for thrombophilia in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss is not recommended. No clear recommendations regarding the management of APCR in the planning for IVF are yet available.What do the results of this study add? APCR significantly increases implantation failure among infertile women who conduct IVF. Management of APCR using LMWH and aspirin was effective in mitigating this effect and increasing successful implantation.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our findings can support the recommendation to include APCR assay in the routine tests for infertile women conducting IVF, and suggest the combination between LMWH and aspirin as an effective therapy to increase successful implantation in APCR positive candidates. However, more controlled clinical trials are still needed to confirm our results. What is already known on this subject? The evidence about the impact of APCR on IVF outcomes is still inconclusive. According to the Canadian guideline, routine screening for thrombophilia in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss is not recommended. No clear recommendations regarding the management of APCR in the planning for IVF are yet available. What do the results of this study add? APCR significantly increases implantation failure among infertile women who conduct IVF. Management of APCR using LMWH and aspirin was effective in mitigating this effect and increasing successful implantation. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our findings can support the recommendation to include APCR assay in the routine tests for infertile women conducting IVF, and suggest the combination between LMWH and aspirin as an effective therapy to increase successful implantation in APCR positive candidates. However, more controlled clinical trials are still needed to confirm our results.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→