Impact of stimulation with luteinizing hormone activity on IVF outcomes in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients treated with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) alone or FSH and luteinizing hormone (LH), under freeze-all gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols. Material and Methods: This retrospective study at a university center included PCOS patients, who underwent freeze-all GnRH antagonist IVF cycles between January 2013 and December 2019. They were divided into FSH-only and FSH + LH groups, focusing on pregnancy and live birth rates. Results: The study included 82 patients: 43 received FSH + LH and 39 FSH only. Baseline characteristics were similar, except for higher thyroid stimulating hormone levels in the FSH-only group. The FSH + LH group required a lower mean ± standard deviation total dose of FSH (1271.5±376.7 vs. 1407.2±645.3 IU, p=0.02), had a shorter mean cycle length (7.3±3.4 vs. 8.3±1.6 days, p=0.004), and had a higher mean number of follicles stimulated (36.9±15.9 vs. 35.9±9.7, p=0.008) compared to the FSH-only group. No significant differences in pregnancy and live birth rates were noted at first transfer, but the cumulative live birth rate was significantly higher in the FSH-only group [30 of 39 (76.9%) vs. 24 of 43 (55.8%), p=0.044]. Conclusion: LH supplementation in PCOS patients undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF protocols may impair cumulative live birth rates, despite lowering FSH requirement and reducing IVF cycle length. These results highlight the complex role of LH in IVF outcomes for PCOS patients, suggesting a need for further large studies to fully understand the impact of LH in such treatments.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".