ArticlePorto biomedical journal
Candidates selection for oocyte donation in a public gamete bank-Predictive value of the anti-Müllerian hormone.
Article in Porto biomedical journal. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship between anti-Müllerian hormone concentration in the peripheral blood of women and aneuploid pregnancy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Anti-Müllerian Hormone Levels Are Associated With Skeletal Maturity in Adolescent Girls: A Longitudinal Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of the number of oocytes obtained during in vitro fertilization treatments.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Observational
- Anti-Müllerian hormone a surrogate of follicular fluid oxidative stress in polycystic ovary syndrome?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Article
- Elevated Anti-Müllerian Hormone as a Prognostic Factor for Poor Outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infertility treatments with oocyte donation are becoming frequent. Recruitment of oocyte donors is a demanding and costly process and therefore of crucial importance. The selection of the oocyte donors undergoes a rigorous evaluation process of the candidates with routine measurement of the anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels (ovarian reserve test). Our aim was to assess whether AMH levels could act as a good marker as tool to select the donor candidates and correlate them with the ovarian response to stimulation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol as well as to identify and validate the appropriate AMH level threshold by correlating it with the number of oocytes retrieved. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the oocyte donors' clinical records was performed. Results: The mean age of the participants was 27 years. The ovarian reserve evaluation showed a mean AMH of 5.20 ng/mL. An average number of 16 oocytes was retrieved (12 mature oocytes MII). AMH levels showed a statistically significant positive correlation with the number of total oocytes retrieved. A threshold value of AMH = 3.2 ng/mL predictive of the retrieval <12 oocytes (areas under the curve, 0.7364; 95% confidence interval: 0.529-0.944) was identified by receiver operating characteristic curve. Using this cutoff, the normal response (12 oocytes) was predicted with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 60%. Conclusions: The measurement of AMH may be a determining factor in the choice of the oocyte donor candidates to maximize the response to requests from beneficiaries who require donor oocytes to perform assisted reproductive technique cycles.
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.