In Vitro Maturation in Women with vs. without Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in vitro maturation (IVM) in sub-fertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), by comparing outcomes with a control group of non-PCOS. STUDY DESIGN: A search strategy was developed for PubMed and studies reporting rates of the following outcomes (live birth; clinical pregnancy; implantation; cycle cancellation; oocyte maturation; oocyte fertilization; miscarriage) between patients with PCOS, PCO and controls undergoing IVM were deemed eligible. The review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines and included studies quality was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality scale. ORs with their corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for the main analysis and subgroup analyses were performed for PCOS cases vs. controls and PCOS vs. PCO cases. Alternative analyses were performed for live birth and clinical pregnancy, based on cycles and on women. Subgroup analyses for FSH stimulation, hCG priming and type of procedure (IVF/ICSI) were undertaken for all meta-analyses encompassing at least four study arms. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect estimates. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified. A total of 268 PCOS patients (328 cycles), 100 PCO patients (110 cycles) and 440 controls (480 cycles) were included in the meta-analysis. A borderline trend towards higher birth rates among PCOS patients emerged (pooled OR = 1.74, 95%CI: 0.99-3.04) mainly reflected at the subgroup analysis vs. controls. Clinical pregnancy (pooled OR = 2.37, 95%CI: 1.53-3.68) and implantation rates (pooled OR = 1.73, 95%CI: 1.06-2.81) were higher, while cancellation rates lower (pooled OR = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.06-0.47) among PCOS vs. non-PCOS subjects; maturation and miscarriage rates did not differ between groups, while a borderline trend towards lower fertilization rates among PCOS patients was observed. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of IVM as a treatment option when offered in sub-fertile PCOS women, as the latter present at least as high outcome rates as those in non-PCOS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".