MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415848517 · doi:10.1080/07853890.2025.2583330

The auxiliary effect of oral nutritional supplements on fertility in women with diminished ovarian reserve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415848517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xuanling Li, Qian Zhao, Guangyao Lin, Lianwei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Innovation Plan Of Shanghai Science and Technology CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFertilityInfertilityMEDLINEPregnancyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Evaluate the adjuvant effects of oral nutritional supplements including vitamins, coenzyme Q10, and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) on fertility in patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR).Methods We conducted a generalized explore of 9 databases established as of September 1, 2024. Mainly studing and analyzing outcomes including serum follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels, anti Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels, antral follicle count (AFC), retrieved oocytes, and clinical pregnancy rate with the methodology of a systematic review and meta-analysis. The inclusion quality of each experiment was evaluated through the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).Results The meta-analysis consisted of 16 studies with 2773 participants. A review of existing evidence suggested that oral nutritional supplements, including vitamins, coenzyme Q10, and DHEA, could significantly lower FSH levels (SMD = −0.67, 95% CI [−0.94, −0.40], p < 0.0001), rise AMH levels (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI [0.02, 0.69], p = 0.04), AFC counts (MD = 0.99, 95% CI [0.28, 1.69], p = 0.006), retrieved oocyte counts (MD = 0.88, 95% CI [0.54, 1.23], p < 0.0001), and clinical pregnancy rate (OR = 1.70, 95% CI = [1.35, 2.13], p < 0.0001). Oral nutritional supplements for more than 2 months have a better effect on lowering FSH levels, raising AMH levels, and oocyte numbers (p < 0.05). In addition, we found that the use of coenzyme Q10 alone was more effective than the use of DHEA alone through subgroup analysis. There was a remarkable correlation (p < 0.05) between the use of both nutritional supplements and the decrease of FSH, as well as the increase of AMH, AFC, and oocytes retrieved. We used sensitivity analysis to conclude that our summary results are robust.Conclusions Oral nutritional supplements, including vitamins, coenzyme Q10, and DHEA may be a simple and relatively low-risk treatment option to assist in improving fertility in women with DOR.Registration number CRD42024580831.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.030
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of MedicineSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207