A comparison between r-LH and urinary supplements containing LH activity in patients undergoing the microdose GnRH agonist flare protocol for in-vitro fertilization: a pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare pregnancy rates and stimulation parameters in patients with diminished ovarian reserve, who were treated with recombinant human luteinizing hormone (r-LH) or menopausal gonadotropins (hMG), as part of a microdose flare protocol. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Comparisons between the group that was stimulated with r-LH plus follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) to those treated with hMG and FSH, were performed. Measurements included: medication doses, number of oocyte collected, number of embryos obtained, pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULTS: Patients in the r-LH group (N.=40) had significant higher clinical pregnancy rates (33% vs. 14%; P=0.04) and used lower dose of LH (1938 IU vs. 2807 IU; P=0.02) compared to patients that were stimulated with hMG (N.=39). CONCLUSIONS: r-LH may offer advantages for the treatment of diminished ovarian reserve when performing a microdose flare protocol when compared to hMG. Both larger and prospective studies should be carried out to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".