Age-related changes in luteal dynamics: preliminary associations with antral follicular dynamics and hormone production during the human menstrual cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that the development of luteal phase dominant follicles (LPDFs) as women age is associated with abnormal luteal function. METHODS: Luteal and antral follicle diameter were quantified in ovulatory women of midreproductive age (MRA; 18-35 y; n = 9) and advanced reproductive age (ARA; 45-55 y; n = 16) every 1 to 3 days during one complete interovulatory interval. Blood was drawn at each visit and assayed for progesterone, estradiol, inhibin A, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone. Luteal diameter and hormone profiles were compared within MRA and ARA women with versus without LPDFs. RESULTS: Luteal growth and regression profiles were similar in MRA women with typical versus no LPDFs (13.9, 14.8 mm; P > 0.1); however, luteal phase estradiol and progesterone were greater in MRA women with typical (91.1 ng/L, 8.81 μg/L) versus no (48.8 ng/L, 7.32 μg/L) LPDFs, respectively (LPDF effect, P < 0.1). In the ARA group, mean luteal diameter was lowest in women with atypical LPDFs (12.3 mm), greatest in those with typical LPDFs (16.0 mm), and moderate in those with no LPDFs (13.6 mm), (P < 0.1). Reduced luteal growth in ARA women with atypical versus typical and/or no LPDFs occurred simultaneously to greater luteal phase estradiol (199 vs 69.0, 78.4 ng/L) lower progesterone (7.38 vs 10.7, 13.8 ug/L), and lower inhibin A (36.3, 35.6, 51.2) (P < 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: The development of LPDFs as women age was associated with reduced luteal growth, greater estradiol, lower progesterone, and lower inhibin A. These findings provide preliminary evidence that variations in antral folliculogenesis contribute to luteal insufficiency during the menopausal transition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".