A meta-analysis of outcomes of conventional IVF in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of conventional IVF in women presenting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and non-PCOS patients. Studies in which PCOS patients undergoing IVF were compared with a matched--no male factor--control group were considered for this review. A definition consistent with the Rotterdam consensus criteria of PCOS was required, and all patients within a given study had to be treated with the same ovarian stimulation protocol. Information regarding patient characteristics and pregnancy outcome was also required. Nine out of 290 identified studies reporting data on 458 PCOS patients (793 cycles) and 694 matched controls (1116 cycles) fulfilled these inclusion criteria. PCOS patients demonstrated a significantly reduced chance of oocyte retrieval per started cycle, odds ratio (OR) = 0.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.2-1.0]. However, no difference was observed in chance of embryo transfer per oocyte retrieval between the groups (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Significantly more oocytes per retrieval were obtained in PCOS patients compared with controls [random effects estimate 3.4 [95% (CI) = 1.7-5.1)]. The number of oocytes fertilized did not differ significantly between PCOS patients and controls, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.1 oocytes (95% CI = 21.4-1.6). No significant difference was observed in the clinical pregnancy rates per started cycle, OR = 1.0 (95% CI = 0.8-1.3). The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) after oocyte retrieval was rarely reported. This meta-analysis demonstrates an increased cancellation rate, but more oocytes retrieved per retrieval and a lower fertilization rate in PCOS undergoing IVF. Overall, PCOS and control patients achieved similar pregnancy and live birth rates per cycle.
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) | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".