Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Navydoc
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,
perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.
When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.
The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.
If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.
At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.
The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.
For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.
Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.
The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.
Could it happen, yes.
But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.
[/quote]
Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,
perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.
When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.
The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.
If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.
At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.
The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.
For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.
Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.
The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.
Could it happen, yes.
But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.
[/quote]
Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,
perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.
When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.
The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.
If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.
At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.
The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.
For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.
Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.
The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.
Could it happen, yes.
But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.
[/quote]
Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.
ParticipantAs a general rule of thumb Torrance gets better the further West and North you go. The seedier areas are quite obvious. The part of Torrance that starts to rise “up the hill” into Rolling Hills and RPV is probably the nicest, but there are other good areas as well. The side by Carson not so nice. As I stated earlier Torrance is very large for an LA community. I write this of course as I look out the window of the 7th floor of Harbor UCLA Medical Center, which is right at the Torrance/Carson border.
ParticipantAs a general rule of thumb Torrance gets better the further West and North you go. The seedier areas are quite obvious. The part of Torrance that starts to rise “up the hill” into Rolling Hills and RPV is probably the nicest, but there are other good areas as well. The side by Carson not so nice. As I stated earlier Torrance is very large for an LA community. I write this of course as I look out the window of the 7th floor of Harbor UCLA Medical Center, which is right at the Torrance/Carson border.
ParticipantAs a general rule of thumb Torrance gets better the further West and North you go. The seedier areas are quite obvious. The part of Torrance that starts to rise “up the hill” into Rolling Hills and RPV is probably the nicest, but there are other good areas as well. The side by Carson not so nice. As I stated earlier Torrance is very large for an LA community. I write this of course as I look out the window of the 7th floor of Harbor UCLA Medical Center, which is right at the Torrance/Carson border.
ParticipantAs a general rule of thumb Torrance gets better the further West and North you go. The seedier areas are quite obvious. The part of Torrance that starts to rise “up the hill” into Rolling Hills and RPV is probably the nicest, but there are other good areas as well. The side by Carson not so nice. As I stated earlier Torrance is very large for an LA community. I write this of course as I look out the window of the 7th floor of Harbor UCLA Medical Center, which is right at the Torrance/Carson border.
ParticipantAs a general rule of thumb Torrance gets better the further West and North you go. The seedier areas are quite obvious. The part of Torrance that starts to rise “up the hill” into Rolling Hills and RPV is probably the nicest, but there are other good areas as well. The side by Carson not so nice. As I stated earlier Torrance is very large for an LA community. I write this of course as I look out the window of the 7th floor of Harbor UCLA Medical Center, which is right at the Torrance/Carson border.
ParticipantI would second the Torrance recommendation. I lived there myself for my first year here. Be aware that Torrance is quite large and diverse, with neighborhoods ranging from having refineries in your backyard to upper middle class near Rolling Hills. RPV is lovely, but quite expesive, as is Manhattan Beach. The area of Torrance bordering Rolling Hills at PCH and Crenshaw is quite nice, with reasonably priced homes. There is a large Japanese community there which is interesting, and since I moved there from Japan it made me feel comfortable. They tend to take very good care of their neighborhoods and demand quality schools. Adds a nice flavor of divesity to an otherwise overwhelmingly latino city.
As for traffic, it’s LA. Much worse than San Diego as a whole. The 405 headed south in the afternoons can be pretty brutal. Avoid the 110 like the plague.
ParticipantI would second the Torrance recommendation. I lived there myself for my first year here. Be aware that Torrance is quite large and diverse, with neighborhoods ranging from having refineries in your backyard to upper middle class near Rolling Hills. RPV is lovely, but quite expesive, as is Manhattan Beach. The area of Torrance bordering Rolling Hills at PCH and Crenshaw is quite nice, with reasonably priced homes. There is a large Japanese community there which is interesting, and since I moved there from Japan it made me feel comfortable. They tend to take very good care of their neighborhoods and demand quality schools. Adds a nice flavor of divesity to an otherwise overwhelmingly latino city.
As for traffic, it’s LA. Much worse than San Diego as a whole. The 405 headed south in the afternoons can be pretty brutal. Avoid the 110 like the plague.
ParticipantI would second the Torrance recommendation. I lived there myself for my first year here. Be aware that Torrance is quite large and diverse, with neighborhoods ranging from having refineries in your backyard to upper middle class near Rolling Hills. RPV is lovely, but quite expesive, as is Manhattan Beach. The area of Torrance bordering Rolling Hills at PCH and Crenshaw is quite nice, with reasonably priced homes. There is a large Japanese community there which is interesting, and since I moved there from Japan it made me feel comfortable. They tend to take very good care of their neighborhoods and demand quality schools. Adds a nice flavor of divesity to an otherwise overwhelmingly latino city.
As for traffic, it’s LA. Much worse than San Diego as a whole. The 405 headed south in the afternoons can be pretty brutal. Avoid the 110 like the plague.
ParticipantI would second the Torrance recommendation. I lived there myself for my first year here. Be aware that Torrance is quite large and diverse, with neighborhoods ranging from having refineries in your backyard to upper middle class near Rolling Hills. RPV is lovely, but quite expesive, as is Manhattan Beach. The area of Torrance bordering Rolling Hills at PCH and Crenshaw is quite nice, with reasonably priced homes. There is a large Japanese community there which is interesting, and since I moved there from Japan it made me feel comfortable. They tend to take very good care of their neighborhoods and demand quality schools. Adds a nice flavor of divesity to an otherwise overwhelmingly latino city.
As for traffic, it’s LA. Much worse than San Diego as a whole. The 405 headed south in the afternoons can be pretty brutal. Avoid the 110 like the plague.
ParticipantI would second the Torrance recommendation. I lived there myself for my first year here. Be aware that Torrance is quite large and diverse, with neighborhoods ranging from having refineries in your backyard to upper middle class near Rolling Hills. RPV is lovely, but quite expesive, as is Manhattan Beach. The area of Torrance bordering Rolling Hills at PCH and Crenshaw is quite nice, with reasonably priced homes. There is a large Japanese community there which is interesting, and since I moved there from Japan it made me feel comfortable. They tend to take very good care of their neighborhoods and demand quality schools. Adds a nice flavor of divesity to an otherwise overwhelmingly latino city.
As for traffic, it’s LA. Much worse than San Diego as a whole. The 405 headed south in the afternoons can be pretty brutal. Avoid the 110 like the plague.
ParticipantJust found a neat case report of a monochorionic/triamniotic triplet pregnancy after IVF. This particular configuration could only occur after 2 twinning events in the same embryo. In the case 2 embryos were transferred, but only one survived and implanted.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12906712
-
AuthorPosts
