You may have seen this before. I haven't and found it pretty interesting. Anyone have a guess why us older ladies seem to have a decent % of normal embryos but much much lower pregnancy rate? What am I missing?
http://reprogenetics.com/arraycghtest ... prognosis/
Link >>>CGH prognosis by age

bbtocudl

DeeinNYC
What is the % number that is underneath the bold percentage number. I can't seem to figure this chart out.

Kim
Good question.... the bold # looks like a high % of normal embryos on day 3 for older galsYou may have seen this before. I haven't and found it pretty interesting. Anyone have a guess why us older ladies seem to have a decent % of normal embryos but much much lower pregnancy rate? What am I missing?
http://reprogenetics.com/arraycghtest ... prognosis/

 Joined: December 20th, 2010, 7:38 pm
However, I have a question for the ovarian response.What is the % number that is underneath the bold percentage number. I can't seem to figure this chart out.
It doesn't state the average dose of stim meds used to get such response. You obviously cannot group ovarian response of high stim and low stim together. So I am wondering what the baseline meds dosage is.

 Joined: December 20th, 2010, 7:38 pm
has quite a bit to do with factors other than egg quality  our general reproductive receptive system. It looks like implantation failure has something to do with it.You may have seen this before. I haven't and found it pretty interesting. Anyone have a guess why us older ladies seem to have a decent % of normal embryos but much much lower pregnancy rate? What am I missing?
http://reprogenetics.com/arraycghtest ... prognosis/
But even for the younger age group like those in the 20s, only 4073% of their 100% normal embryos make it to pregnancy. Just that our pregnancy ratio of normal embryos is far lower, which to me is an indication of problems with uterine lining (failure to respond to hormone, etc).

DeeinNYC
Those normal percentages are much higher than I have ever seen anywhere...does not make any sense to me. Thanks for explaining.However, I have a question for the ovarian response.
It doesn't state the average dose of stim meds used to get such response. You obviously cannot group ovarian response of high stim and low stim together. So I am wondering what the baseline meds dosage is.

 Joined: September 16th, 2011, 4:55 am
These charts ARE confusing and took me a few minutes to figure out. As far as I can tell, the bold number isn't actually the percentage of normal embryos, it's the percent of how likely the chance is that the patient will get one embryo that tests normal to transfer in any one cycle. So in other words, if a 4042 year old patient produces more than 10 embryos in a cycle, her chances of one being normal on day 3 is 93%, and if she gets 710 blasts, the chance of one of those blasts being normal is 100%. This correlates with the numbers we already have for this age groupthat is, that at 4042 approximately 3 out of 10 eggs at most are going to be normal. And again, with blasts, you're looking at a 3638% implantation rate, which is pretty close to the 40% statistic S.IRM gave me when we were talking about this last week. I think MiR is right as far as the reasons we have a lower implantation rate at this age, but other than that the numbers do all seem to line up!You may have seen this before. I haven't and found it pretty interesting. Anyone have a guess why us older ladies seem to have a decent % of normal embryos but much much lower pregnancy rate? What am I missing?
http://reprogenetics.com/arraycghtest ... prognosis/
Last edited by di_nyc on April 2nd, 2012, 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kim
agreed....think lining issues are overlooked too oftenhas quite a bit to do with factors other than egg quality  our general reproductive receptive system. It looks like implantation failure has something to do with it.
But even for the younger age group like those in the 20s, only 4073% of their 100% normal embryos make it to pregnancy. Just that our pregnancy ratio of normal embryos is far lower, which to me is an indication of problems with uterine lining (failure to respond to hormone, etc).

 Joined: December 20th, 2010, 7:38 pm
but you can never get to 100% with cumulative probability (1x%)^N, maybe they round it up? I couldn't find their footnote, but maybe I missed it?These charts ARE confusing and took me a few minutes to figure out. As far as I can tell, the bold number isn't actually the percentage of normal embryos, it's the percent of how likely the chance is that the patient will get one embryo that tests normal to transfer in any one cycle. So in other words, if a 4042 year old patient produces more than 10 embryos in a cycle, her chances of one being normal on day 3 is 93%, and if she gets 710 blasts, the chance of one of those blasts being normal is 100%. This correlates with the numbers we already have for this age groupthat is, that at 4042 approximately 3 out of 10 eggs at most are going to be normal. And again, with blasts, you're looking at a 3638% implantation rate, which is pretty close to the 40% statistic S.IRM gave me when we were talking about this last week. I think MiR is right as far as the reasons we have a lower implantation rate at this age, but other than that the numbers do all seem to line up!
Last edited by miraclex2 on April 3rd, 2012, 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

 Joined: December 20th, 2010, 7:38 pm
I am working with the day 5 blast number
The cumulative probability of 42+ finding a normal blast in 3 blasts is 40%, so the implied chance per blast is 16%. The cumulative probability of 6 blasts is 65%, the implied chance per blast again is 16%.
For the 4042 category, the cumulative probability of finding a normal egg in 3 blasts is 68%, so the implied chance per blast. The implied chance per blast in 6 blasts however is lower, only 13%. For those who can produce 10 blasts, the implied chance per blast is at least 40% (assuming round up to 100%). Does that make sense?
The cumulative probability of 42+ finding a normal blast in 3 blasts is 40%, so the implied chance per blast is 16%. The cumulative probability of 6 blasts is 65%, the implied chance per blast again is 16%.
For the 4042 category, the cumulative probability of finding a normal egg in 3 blasts is 68%, so the implied chance per blast. The implied chance per blast in 6 blasts however is lower, only 13%. For those who can produce 10 blasts, the implied chance per blast is at least 40% (assuming round up to 100%). Does that make sense?