ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021
Idiopathic early ovarian aging: is there a relation with premenopausal accelerated biological aging in young women with diminished response to ART?
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular markers, mechanisms and metrics of biological aging: a scoping review.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
- Methylation and algorithms in biological aging: a scoping review.Frontiers in aging · 2025Review
- Epigenetic age acceleration in follicular fluid and markers of ovarian response among women undergoing IVF.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- FSH/LH co-stimulation in Advanced Maternal Age (AMA) and hypo-responder patients - Arabian gulf delphi consensus group.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Epigenetic clocks and female fertility timeline: A new approach to an old issue?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether young women with idiopathic early ovarian aging, as defined by producing fewer oocytes than expected for a given age over multiple in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, have changes in telomere length and epigenetic age indicating accelerated biological aging (i.e., increased risk of morbidity and mortality).
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted at two Danish public fertility clinics. A total of 55 young women (≤ 37 years) with at least two IVF cycles with ≤ 5 harvested oocytes despite sufficient stimulation with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) were included in the early ovarian aging group. As controls, 52 young women (≤ 37 years) with normal ovarian function, defined by at least eight harvested oocytes, were included. Relative telomere length (rTL) and epigenetic age acceleration (AgeAccel) were measured in white blood cells as markers of premenopausal accelerated biological aging.
resultsrTL was comparable with a mean of 0.46 (± SD 0.12) in the early ovarian aging group and 0.47 (0.14) in the normal ovarian aging group. The AgeAccel of the early ovarian aging group was, insignificantly, 0.5 years older, but this difference disappeared when adjusting for chronological age. Sub-analysis using Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) as selection criterion for the two groups did not change the results.
conclusionWe did not find any indications of accelerated aging in whole blood from young women with idiopathic early ovarian aging. Further investigations in a similar cohort of premenopausal women or other tissues are needed to fully elucidate the potential relationship between premenopausal accelerated biological aging and early ovarian aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.