Does the Ovarian Stimulation Phase Length Predict In vitro Fertilization Outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bi-directional communication between the follicle and oocyte is necessary to regulate follicle and oocyte development. Currently, it is not practical to monitor the serial growth of individual follicles during assisted reproduction. The ovarian stimulation phase length (SPL) is an indirect measure of mean follicular growth rate. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that a short or long SPL would be associated with suboptimal outcomes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 140 women who underwent IVF. Follicle development was monitored every 2-3 days during ovarian stimulation using transvaginal ultrasonography. Once > 3 follicles reached ≥ 17 mm, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was administered. Oocyte retrieval was performed approximately 35 hours after hCG. Oocytes underwent IVF on the day of collection and were evaluated daily thereafter. Embryos were transferred on days 3 or 5, depending on the number and quality of embryos available. Associations between SPL, age, follicle, oocyte, embryo and pregnancy outcomes were evaluated (SPSS version 17.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: A SPL of 11 days was associated with an optimal number of follicles that developed to ≥ 6 mm, ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 15 mm; serum estradiol concentrations; and number of oocytes collected (p<0.05). Gradual reductions in the number of developing follicles, serum estradiol concentrations and number of oocytes collected occurred with SPL less than or greater than 11 days (p<0.05). The SPL did not influence endometrial, embryo or pregnancy outcomes (p>0.05). Associations between SPL and outcomes were not influenced by age (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The ovarian SPL can be used to predict the number of follicles that develop, oocytes collected and serum estradiol concentrations, but not embryo or pregnancy outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".