No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The non-local means (NLM) method explores self-similarities in images for noise removal. The traditional NLM (TNLM) method computes pixel similarity using the globally fixed decay parameter. However, a fixed decay parameter for the whole image makes it difficult to ensure that the TNLM method can restore both edge pixels and non-edge pixels effectively. To address this problem, the SUSAN controlled NLM (SNLM) method is proposed to adaptively tune the decay parameter for each image pixel based on the SUSAN edge response. Extensive simulations demonstrate that the SNLM method outperforms several state-of-the-art NLM methods in terms of noise reduction and detail preservation.

Context Progestins have recently been used as an alternative for GnRH analogues to prevent premature LH surge due to the application of vitrification technology. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) regimen, including oocyte competence, cumulative live birth rate (LBR), and offspring outcomes, remain to be investigated. Objective To compare cumulative LBR of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles between PPOS regimen and GnRH analogues. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Patients A total of 967 patients with good prognosis were categorized into three groups, of which 478 patients received a long GnRH agonist, 248 patients received a GnRH antagonist and 250 received a PPOS regimen. Medroxyprogesterone 17-acetate (MPA) was the only progestin used in PPOS regimen. Intervention None. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was cumulative LBR. Secondary outcomes included time to live birth, cumulative rates of biochemical and clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss, and perinatal outcomes. Results The PPOS regimen was negatively associated with cumulative LBR compared to GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists (28.4% versus 40.7% and 42.7%). The average time to live birth was significantly shorter with GnRH antagonists than with PPOS regimen. The cumulative biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates were also lower in PPOS regimen than GnRH analogues, while cumulative pregnancy loss rates were similar across groups. Furthermore, the number and ratio of good-quality blastocysts were significantly reduced in PPOS regimen compared to GnRH analogues. In addition, perinatal outcomes were comparable across three groups. Conclusions PPOS regimen may be adversely affect cumulative LBR and blastocyst quality in women with good prognosis compared to GnRH analogues in PGT cycles.