FSH/LH Ratio as a Predictor of the IVF Outcome in Young Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is the treatment for many causes of infertility. Many studies were done to investigate different factors that can affect the success rate. This study was conducted to evaluate if cycle day 3 (CD3) follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH)/luteinizing hormone (LH) ratio can be a predictor for the IVF outcome in young sub-fertile females ≤ 35 years with normal baseline FSH. This is a retrospective case control study conducted at the Centre of Fertility and Andrology Care (CFAC) in Egypt where 235 sub-fertile women underwent IVF. Patients were grouped based on CD3 FSH/LH ratio. Group A consisted of ≤35-year-old women with FSH/LH ratio ≤35-year-old women with FSH/LH ratio ≥ 2. The primary outcomes include the fertilization rate, implantation rate and the clinical pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes include duration and the total dose of gonadotrophin used. We found that, there was no significant difference in the total dose of gonadotropin used during the IVF cycle. Also, there was no significant difference in the number of retrieved and fertilized oocytes and the number of good embryos. Clinical pregnancy rate was the same in both groups. In conclusion, in patients younger than 35 years, CD3 FSH/LH ratio is not a predictor for IVF outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 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".