Young age does not protect against the adverse effects of reduced ovarian reserve—an eight year study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian reserve significantly influences IVF outcome. Low response to ovarian stimulation due to reduction of ovarian reserve is occasionally encountered in young women. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of IVF treatment in young patients with reduced ovarian reserve. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 1993-2001, 762 consecutive patients satisfied the definition of reduced ovarian reserve (raised early follicular phase FSH or gonadotrophin stimulation cycles where three or fewer oocytes were retrieved after routine FSH stimulation) and were included in the study. They were classified into three age groups: young (< or = 30 years), intermediate (31-38 years) and older (>38 years). The three age groups were similar with respect to basal (day 3) serum FSH and estradiol concentrations, cause of infertility and number of previous treatment cycles. Implantation (13, 9.6 and 9.8%), clinical pregnancy (11.8, 10.2 and 10%) and live birth (7.4, 7.3 and 6.8%) rates were not significantly different in the three age groups respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study shows that younger patients with reduced ovarian reserve have a poor outcome of IVF treatment similar to their older counterparts. Such information may be helpful in counselling these patients who otherwise might anticipate an outcome related to their chronological age.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it