A randomized study comparing IVF in the unstimulated cycle with IVF following clomiphene citrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficiency of IVF in unstimulated cycles was compared with that following ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate in a simple protocol with ultrasound monitoring only. A total of 132 couples with no previous IVF attempts, selected by female age <35 years, indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection or infertility caused by tubal factor or unexplained infertility were randomized to the two protocols. Randomization yielded two comparable groups. The clomiphene group (68 couples) performed significantly better than the unstimulated group (64 couples) in terms of number of cycles with oocyte harvest (90/111 or 81% versus 65/114 or 57%; chi(2) = 9.21, P < 0.002), embryo transfers per started cycle (59/111 or 53% versus 29/114 or 25%; chi(2) = 18.14, P < 0.0001), live intrauterine pregnancy rate per started cycle (20/111 or 18% versus 4/114 or 4%; chi(2) = 12.42, P < 0.0001), live intrauterine pregnancy rate per embryo transfer (20/59 or 34% versus 4/29 or 14%; chi(2) = 3.96, P = 0.047), but not in terms of implantation rate (22/85 or 26% versus 4/29 or 14%; chi(2) = 1.65). Only two twin pregnancies occurred. Modest side-effects were recorded following clomiphene. Accordingly, a simple clomiphene citrate protocol, but not IVF in unstimulated cycles, seems compatible with the concept of 'friendly IVF', yielding a fair pregnancy rate both per cycle started and per embryo transfer in selected patients. The results do not substantiate any important negative anti-oestrogenic effects of clomiphene.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".