Clinical outcomes in relation to the daily dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization in presumed normal responders younger than 39 years: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal ovarian stimulation dose to obtain the best balance between the probability of pregnancy and the risk of complications, while maximizing cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, is yet to be established. METHODS: A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library, from 1984 until October 2009 for randomized controlled trials comparing different doses of recombinant FSH in IVF, was performed. RESULTS: Ten studies (totaling 1952 IVF cycles) were included in the present meta-analysis, comprising patients younger than 39 years with regular menstrual cycle, normal basal FSH levels and two normal ovaries. Comparison was made between studies using a daily dose of 100 versus 200 IU recFSH, and between 150 versus 200 IU recFSH or higher. Although oocyte yield was greater in the >200 IU/day dose group, pregnancy rates were similar compared with lower dose groups. The risk of insufficient response to ovarian stimulation was greatest in the 100 IU/day dose group. The risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was greater in the >200 IU/day dose group. The number of embryos available for cryopreservation was lowest in the 100 IU/day group, but similar comparing the 150 IU/day and the >200 IU/day dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that the optimal daily recFSH stimulation dose is 150 IU/day in presumed normal responders younger than 39 years undergoing IVF. Compared with higher doses, this dose is associated with a slightly lower oocyte yield, but similar pregnancy and embryo cryopreservation rates. Furthermore, the wide spread adherence to this optimal dose will allow for a considerable reduction in IVF costs and complications.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".