MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412983118 · doi:10.1016/j.xfss.2025.07.006

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling vs. step-up gonadotropin therapy in infertile anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome women resistant to sequential letrozole and gonadotropin-based ovulation induction cycles: a randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4412983118 on OpenAlexaff
H V Bhavana, Reeta Mahey, Aarthi K. Jayraj, Ashish Datt Upadhyay, Archana Kumari, Garima Kachhawa, Ayushi Negi, Khushbu Bashir, Srikar Yedlapalli

Bibliographic record

VenueF&S Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLetrozoleRandomized controlled trialMedicineGonadotropinOvulation inductionGynecologyAnovulationOvulationInternal medicineHormoneInsulinAromataseInsulin resistancePolycystic ovary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) vs. step-up gonadotropin therapy on follicular response in infertile anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) women resistant to sequential letrozole + human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG)-based ovulation induction (OVI) cycles. DESIGN: Open-labeled, pilot, randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS: ; patent fallopian tubes documented on either hysterosalpingography/saline infusion sonography or laparoscopy; antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels >6 ng/mL. Exclusion criteria were AMH ≤6 ng/mL; moderate to severe male factor infertility and endometriosis. INTERVENTION: Participants in group 1 (N = 35) underwent LOD, after which OVI cycles were started with letrozole 5 mg from the following menses. Gonadotropin were added in a sequential manner if required as per the follicular response. Women in group 2 (N = 35) were administered injection of HMG (75 IU) from day 2 of menses and dose increments were done from day 9 onward as per response. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was follicular response (dominant follicle >16 mm). Secondary objectives were gonadotropin requirement per cycle, duration of stimulation, time to conception (months), clinical pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy rate (>12 weeks). The study also compared the effect of LOD on hormonal parameters (AMH, serum testosterone) and metabolic parameters (fasting insulin, fasting blood glucose, lipid profile, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) after 1-2 months of procedure. RESULTS: Majority of the study participants (82.85%) belonged to PCOS phenotype A. The baseline clinical, hormonal, and metabolic characteristics and phenotype distribution were comparable in both groups. The follicular response was significantly higher in the LOD group (93.25%; 83/89) compared with step-up gonadotropin group (28.20%; 11/39). With four spontaneous conceptions, the median time to conception in LOD group was 3.9 (0-8.4) months. The clinical pregnancy rate per patient was significantly higher in LOD group [54.28% (19/35)] as compared with step-up gonadotropin group [8.57% (3/35)]. The ongoing pregnancy rate in the LOD group was 45.71% (16/35) vs. 0% (0/35) in the gonadotropin group. There was a significant fall in the AMH levels from 15.2 ± 2.7 ng/mL to 10.2 ± 4.4 ng/mL after LOD. Although statistically insignificant, the levels of luteinizing hormone/follicle-stimulating hormone ratio, testosterone, fasting insulin, fasting glucose and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance levels were also lowered. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling significantly improves the follicular response compared with step-up gonadotropin-based ovulation induction and results in higher clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates along with a significant reduction in gonadotropin requirement. The procedure may be considered for PCOS women resistant to sequential letrozole + HMG-based ovulation induction, especially phenotype A with high AMH and high follicle number per ovary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2023/04/052083.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF&S ScienceSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207