Corifollitropin alfa or rFSH treatment flexibility options for controlled ovarian stimulation: a post hoc analysis of the Engage trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the impact of treatment flexibility on clinical outcomes in either a corifollitropin alfa or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) protocol. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy non-inferiority clinical trial (Engage). Efficacy outcomes were assessed on patients from the Engage trial who started treatment on menstrual cycle day 2 versus menstrual cycle day 3, patients who received rFSH step-down or fixed-dose rFSH, patients who received rFSH on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) compared with those who did not, and patients who received hCG when the criterion was reached versus those with a 1-day delay. RESULTS: The effect of each of the treatment flexibility options on ongoing pregnancy rate was not significant. The estimated difference (95% confidence interval) in ongoing pregnancy rate was -4.3% (-9.4%, 0.8%) for patients who started ovarian stimulation on cycle day 2 versus day 3, 1.8% (-4.1%, 7.6%) for patients who received hCG on the day the hCG criterion was met versus 1 day after, 3.2% (-2.1%, 8.6%) for patients who received rFSH on the day of hCG administration versus those who did not, and -5.8% (-13.0%, 1.4%) for patients who received a reduced versus fixed-dose of rFSH from day 8. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment flexibility of ovarian stimulation does not substantially affect the clinical outcome in patients' treatment following initiation of ovarian stimulation with either corifollitropin alfa or with daily rFSH in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00696800.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".