ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
Comparison of the metabolome of follicular fluid in GnRH agonist versus antagonist protocols during in vitro fertilization cycles.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo conduct a comparative metabolomic analysis of follicular fluid (FF) from patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles under GnRH agonist versus antagonist protocols, aiming to identify protocol-specific metabolic signatures and explore their associations with embryological outcomes, thereby elucidating the metabolic basis for outcome differences and identifying modifiable metabolic factors to expand the scope for improving IVF outcomes.
methodsThis study included 94 patients (47 per group) propensity score-matched for age, body mass index (BMI), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and antral follicle count (AFC). FF samples collected during oocyte retrieval were analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The concentrations of identified metabolites were compared between groups and correlated with key laboratory parameters including the number of retrieved oocytes, Day 3 high-quality embryos, blastocysts, and high-quality blastocysts, as well as cumulative clinical pregnancy rates.
resultsThe patients in GnRH agonist group were found to have better ovarian response, reflected by increased numbers of retrieved oocytes. Metabolomic profiling identified 58 differentially abundant metabolites between the two protocols. The levels of three key fatty acids, 11,14,17-eicosatrienoic acid, homo-γ-linolenic acid, and pentadecanoic acid, markedly decreased in the antagonist group (fold change < 0.75, variable importance in projection > 1.5). These metabolites exhibited strong power to discriminate between the protocols (area under the curve > 80%) and showed significant positive correlations with the number of high-quality embryos (r = 0.32–0.45, P < 0.05). A trend towards a higher cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was observed in the GnRH agonist group (72.34% vs. 55.32%, P = 0.05).
conclusionGnRH agonist and antagonist protocols induce distinct metabolomic profiles in FF. The GnRH agonist protocol is associated with a follicular microenvironment enriched in specific fatty acids, which may contribute to superior ovarian response and increased numbers of high-quality embryos. The identified metabolites serve as potential biomarkers for oocyte quality and provide a theoretical basis for future investigations into nutritional interventions (e.g., omega-3 fatty acid supplementation) aiming at modulating the follicular microenvironment to optimize IVF outcomes following GnRH antagonist protocols.
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.