Follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation for IVF: a controlled, assessor-blind Phase 3 safety trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION: To evaluate the immunogenicity of follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation. DESIGN: Controlled, assessor-blind trial in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients undergoing repeated cycles of ovarian stimulation (cycles 2 and 3), following initial stimulation with follitropin delta or follitropin alfa (cycle 1) in a preceding randomized trial. In cycles 2 and 3, 513 and 188 women, respectively, were treated as randomized in cycle 1, with dosing based on ovarian response in the previous cycle. RESULTS: The incidence of treatment-induced anti-FSH antibodies with follitropin delta was 0.8% and 1.1% in cycles 2 and 3, respectively, which was similar to the incidence in cycle 1 (1.1%). No antibodies were of neutralizing capacity. Women with pre-existing anti-FSH antibodies were safely treated with follitropin delta without boosting an immune response. Treatment with follitropin delta and follitropin alfa gave similar outcomes for mean number of oocytes retrieved (9.2 versus 8.6 [cycle 2]; 8.3 versus 8.9 [cycle 3]), ongoing pregnancy (27.8% versus 25.7%; 27.4% versus 28.0%) and live birth rates (27.4% versus 25.3%; 26.3% versus 26.9%). The presence of anti-FSH antibodies did not affect the ovarian response. CONCLUSIONS: The trial demonstrated the low immunogenicity potential of follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation, and confirmed the appropriateness of the follitropin delta dosing regimen in repeated cycles, with documented efficacy and safety.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".