Impact of low-level sex chromosome mosaicism (<10%) on clinical outcomes of first fresh embryo transfer: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study - Summary - MDSpire

Impact of low-level sex chromosome mosaicism (<10%) on clinical outcomes of first fresh embryo transfer: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

  • By

  • Keng Feng

  • HaiWen Wei

  • YuDi Luo

  • DeRong Li

  • Xiang Li

  • Chun Yang

  • LiangYing Zhou

  • ShaYan Tan

  • LingLing Zhu

  • July 16, 2026

Share

Objective:

To determine whether low-level sex chromosome mosaicism (SCM) affects clinical outcomes in the first fresh embryo transfer cycle.

Approach:
  • Study Design: Single-center retrospective cohort study including 3,216 infertile patients undergoing their first IVF or ICSI-ET cycle.
  • Propensity Score Matching: 1:4 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline demographic, ovarian reserve, and stimulation parameters.
  • Outcomes Measured: Primary outcome was live birth rate; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate and early miscarriage rate.
  • Statistical Analysis: Multivariable logistic regression was applied to calculate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
Key Findings:
  • No significant differences in live birth rate (34.39% vs. 40.75%), clinical pregnancy rate (45.25% vs. 49.72%), or early miscarriage rate (20.00% vs. 16.44%) between SCM and control groups.
  • Multivariable logistic regression showed no independent association between SCM status and live birth (aOR 0.890, P = 0.503) or clinical pregnancy (aOR 0.915, P = 0.591).
  • Female age was a significant predictor of ART outcomes, with each additional year reducing live birth odds by 12.8%.
Interpretation:

Low-level sex chromosome mosaicism (<10%) does not significantly affect live birth, clinical pregnancy, or early miscarriage rates in the first fresh ART transfer cycle, with consistent null findings across all age strata.

Limitations:
  • The study is limited to a single center, which may affect generalizability.
  • Potential confounding factors not fully controlled for despite propensity score matching.
Conclusion:

Original Source(s)

Related Content