Comparison of GnRh Agonist Microdose Flare Up and GnRh Antagonist/Letrozole in Treatment of Poor Responder Patients in Intra Cytoplaspic Sperm Injection: Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: the prevalence of infertility is up to 10 to 15 % which 9 to 24 % of them are Poor Ovarian Responders (POR). This study was designed to compare two methods of GnRH Agonist Microdose Flareup (MF) and GnRH Antagonist/Letrozole (AL) in treatment of these patients. METHODS & MATERIALS: this randomized clinical trial study consisted of 123 patients. In the first step of treatment in both methods FSH, LH, estradiol, anderostandion, testestron in third day of menstruation period and the thickness of endometrium by Transvaginal sonography were evaluated. At the time of HCG injection the thickness of endometrium and follicles which were more than 14mm ware established and hormones were evaluated. Two weeks later serum βhCG and after 6 to 8 weeks Transvaginal sonography were applied to prove the pregnancy. RESULTS: there were 61 patients with mean age of 38.7±4.58 in MF group and 62 patients with mean age of 38.5±4.6 in AL group (P=0.80). At the time of hCG injection there were significant increase in the level of LH,estradiol, thickness of endometrium and follicles more than 14mm in MF patients (P<0.0001). The mean time of ovary stimulation in MF group was 10.72±1.5 and in AL was 8.45±1.2 (P<0.0001). The mean level of gonadotropin which were used was 80.6±20.1 in MF patients and 64.7±16.4 in AL group (P<0.0001). 18 % of MF group and 38.7% in AL group had no normal cycle of ovulation (OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.25-6.57, P=0.011). The mean numbers of oocyte and normal fetus in MF was 5.83±3.5 and 3.7±2.5 and in AL was 3±1.69 and 1.4±1.33 (P<0.0001). The number of chemical pregnancy in MF group was 10 (16.4%) and in AL was 3 (4.8%) (OR:3.85, 95%CI:1.06-14.77, P=0.037). Clinical pregnancy in 10 patients (16.4%) of MF group and 3 (4.8%)in AL was reported. OR: 3.85, 95%CI: 1.06-14.77, P=0.037). CONCLUSION: this study showed that MF method of pregnancy leads to more positive results in pregnancy based on chemical and clinical evaluation in comparison with AL and is advised for poor responder patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".