Comparison of IVF Outcomes between Minimal Stimulation and High-Dose Stimulation for Patients with Poor Ovarian Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether treatment with minimum-dose stimulation (MS) protocol enhances clinical pregnancy rates compared to high-dose stimulation (HS) protocol. A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing IVF and pregnancy outcomes between MS and HS gonadotropin-antagonist protocol for patients with poor ovarian reserve (POR). Inclusion criteria included patients with an anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≤8 pmol/L and/or antral follicle count (AFC) ≤5 on days 2-3 of the cycle. Patients from 2008 exclusively had a HS protocol treatment, while patients in 2010 had treatment with a MS protocol exclusively. The MS protocol involved letrozole at 2.5 mg over 5 days, starting from day 2, overlapping with gonadotropins, starting from the third day of letrozole at 150 units daily. GnRH antagonist was introduced once one or more follicles reached 14 mm or larger. The HS group received gonadotropins (≥300 IU/day) throughout their antagonist cycle. Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the MS protocol compared to the HS protocol (P = 0.007). Furthermore, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the MS group compare to the HS group (P = 0.034). In conclusion, the MS IVF protocol is less expensive (lower gonadotropin dosage) and resulted in a higher clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate than a HS protocol for poor responders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".