Aromatase inhibition reduces gonadotrophin dose required for controlled ovarian stimulation in women with unexplained infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adding clomiphene citrate (CC) to FSH for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) decreases FSH dose required for optimum stimulation. However, because of its anti-estrogenic effects, CC may be associated with lower pregnancy rates offsetting the FSH-dose reduction benefit. Previously, we reported the success of aromatase inhibition in inducing ovulation without antiestrogenic effects. METHODS: A prospective pilot study that included women with unexplained infertility undergoing COS and intrauterine insemination. Thirty-six women received the aromatase inhibitor letrozole + FSH, 18 women received CC + FSH and 56 women received FSH only. Each woman received one treatment regimen in one treatment cycle. All patients were given recombinant or highly purified FSH (50-150 IU/day) starting on day 3 to 7 until day of hCG. RESULTS: The FSH dose needed was significantly lower in letrozole + FSH and CC + FSH groups compared with FSH-only without a difference in number of follicles >1.8 cm. Pregnancy rate was 19.1% in the letrozole + FSH group, 10.5% in the CC + FSH group and 18.7% in the FSH-only group. Both pregnancy rate and endometrial thickness were significantly lower in CC + FSH group compared with the other two groups. Estradiol (E2) levels were significantly lower in the letrozole + FSH group compared with the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to CC, aromatase inhibition with letrozole reduces FSH dose required for COS without the undesirable antiestrogenic effects sometimes seen with CC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".