ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Predicting the ovarian response: towards a determinant model and implications for practice.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo improve the reliability of prediction models for ovarian response to stimulation in ART.
designA multicenter retrospective cohort study.
settingTwelve reproductive centers. PATIENTS: A total of 25,854 controlled ovarian stimulations between 2005 and 2016, including cycles cancelled for inadequate response, were included. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Precision of the prediction of the number of oocytes at ovarian pickup and of cancellation rate for poor ovarian response.
resultsBoth AMH and antral follicle count exhibit a non-linear effect on the oocyte yield, with a linear relationship after log-transformation. After adjustment for age, BMI, and center, ovarian response observed in a previous stimulation was found to be the best predictor, followed by AMH and AFC. The zero-inflated binomial negative model showed that predictors of cycle cancellation and number of oocytes at retrieval were different, and assimilating cancellation to zero oocyte greatly reduces the determination of the model. Our model was characterized by the best ever reached determination (R CONCLUSION(S): A substantial improvement of the ovarian response prediction is possible in modelling the possible cancellation decision, followed by the oocyte retrieval itself, according to an appropriate model based on previous stimulation and non-linear effects of AMH and AFC.
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.