Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41661493›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026

Endometrial aging and uterine receptivity: endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) outcomes in female patients of diverse age groups.

Kaia M Schwartz, Bahar D Yilmaz, Meagan Chan, Marcelle I Cedars, Hakan Cakmak, David Huang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kaia M SchwartzDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Ob/Gyn and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. schwartzkmpub@gmail.com.
Bahar D YilmazDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Ob/Gyn and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Meagan ChanDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Ob/Gyn and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Marcelle I CedarsDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Ob/Gyn and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Hakan CakmakDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Ob/Gyn and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
David HuangDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Ob/Gyn and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 499 Illinois Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.

Funding

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists AAOGF Scholar GrantNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development NIH T32-HD007263
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess whether the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) captures receptivity changes attributed to endometrial aging and whether it may be useful for older patients undergoing fertility treatment.

methodsRetrospective cohort study of patients who underwent ERA testing at an academic center (01/2019-05/2024). The ERA inferred transcriptomic levels of canonical receptivity markers from biopsies obtained at standard timing. Demographic and treatment-related variables were analyzed by age group. The proportion of non-receptive ERA results (pre- and post-receptive combined) was compared using Fisher's exact test. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between predictors and non-receptive ERA.

resultsOf 210 patients, 205 were included. Age distribution was < 35 (n = 35, 17%), 35-37 (n = 58, 28.3%), 38-40 (n = 53, 25.8%), and ≥ 41 (n = 59, 28.8%). Overall, 166 (81.0%) ERAs were receptive, 33 (16.1%) pre-receptive, and 6 (2.9%) post-receptive. BMI, infertility diagnosis, and prior implantation or miscarriage history did not differ by age. Non-receptive ERA proportions were 20% (< 35), 17.2% (35-37), 17.0% (38-40), and 22.0% (≥ 41) (p = 0.52). In multivariable analysis adjusting for BMI and number of prior failed euploid transfers, age was not associated with non-receptive ERA (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.34-2.30, p = 0.97).

conclusionUterine age was not associated with increased odds of non-receptive ERA, suggesting that the test does not capture age-related changes in endometrial receptivity. Although endometrial aging is implicated in reduced embryo transfer success, the ERA should not be ordered solely on the basis of uterine age. The ERA may not reliably detect age-related endometrial differences in the window of implantation at a clinical level.

Indexed as

AgingEmbryo ImplantationEndometriumInfertility, FemaleUterusAdultAge FactorsEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesAgingEndometriumImplantationReceptivity

Identifiers

PMID41661493
PMCPMC13103149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.