Longer ovarian stimulation reduces embryo number and clinical pregnancy rate in long GnRH agonist cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze whether the length of controlled ovarian stimulation affects in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a private, university-affiliated fertility centre. We reviewed 1522 IVF cycles, comprising 979 long gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and 543 GnRH antagonist protocols. All subjects underwent controlled ovarian stimulation followed by fresh embryo transfer. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between trigger day and the following cycle outcomes: normal fertilization rate (FR), proportion of mature oocytes, proportion of cycles with embryos for cryopreservation, and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). RESULTS: In long agonist cycles, having more days of stimulation was associated with a lower clinical pregnancy rate (OR=0.87, 95% CI=0.80-0.96, P=0.01). Longer stimulation also resulted in fewer cycles with supernumerary embryos for cryopreservation (OR=0.84, 95% CI=0.77-0.92, P=0.0005), despite a having greater number of mature oocytes retreived (OR=1.05, 95% CI=1.01-1.10, P=0.04). For each additional day of stimulation in a long agonist protocol, the odds of achieving a clinical pregnancy were reduced by 13% and of achieving cryopreservation by 16%. In the antagonist protocol group, the length of ovarian stimulation did not have an effect on the clinical pregnancy and cryopreservation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Longer duration of ovarian stimulation appears to reduce clinical pregnancy and embryo cryopreservation rates in subjects undergoing long GnRH agonist cycles. The number of days of stimulation does not appear to affect those using the GnRH antagonist protocol.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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".