Clomiphene Citrate versus Letrozole for Ovarian Stimulation in Therapeutic Donor Sperm Insemination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare clomiphene citrate (CC) and letrozole for ovarian stimulation (OS) in therapeutic donor sperm insemination (TDI) cycles. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study between January 2011 and June 2014 at a University-affiliated private IVF clinic in Montreal, Canada. 257 normo-ovulatory women ≤40 years of age with no history of infertility undergoing 590 TDI cycles in the absence of a male partner (single women and same-sex couples) or azoospermia were included. Patients received 100 mg CC daily (145 women, 321 cycles) or letrozole 5 mg daily (112 women, 269 cycles), from days 3 to 7. Only the first 3 cycles were included per patient. Our main outcome measure was cumulative live birth rates (LBR). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. There were no differences in LBR per cycle (16.5% (53/321) vs. 11.5% (31/269), p = 0.08) and cumulative LBR (36.6% (53/145) vs. 27.7% (31/112), p = 0.13), between CC and letrozole, respectively. Multiple pregnancy rate (11.6% (8/69) vs. 8.7% (4/46), p = 0.6) and miscarriage rate (21.7 vs. 21.7%, p = 1) were also comparable between CC and letrozole, respectively. CONCLUSION: In normo-ovulatory women undergoing TDI, OS with CC or letrozole resulted in similar live birth and twin pregnancy rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".