ArticleJournal of ovarian research2026
Luteinizing hormone change trajectories in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols are associated with assisted reproductive outcomes: results from a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextLuteinizing hormone (LH) plays an integral role in follicular development. In gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols, LH levels have been demonstrated to affect assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes. However, the exact nature of this relationship remains unclear, and LH measurements at a single time point may not be sufficient to capture it fully.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on 4,953 infertile women who underwent their first ART cycle with the GnRH antagonist protocol. Four LH measurements (basal status, antagonist administration day and 24 h later, and ovulation trigger day) were obtain for all participants. We used group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) to characterize the trajectories of LH level changes during antagonist protocol implementation. Factors influencing the different LH trajectories were explored. Associations between LH levels at different time points and their trajectories with the number of obtained oocytes and ART outcomes in embryo transfer (ET) cycles were analyzed.
resultsBased on the statistical criteria, the model with 4 trajectories were selected as the best-fitting model, and the LH change trajectories during antagonist protocol can be grouped into stable (77.0%), rising (11.0%), decreasing (6.2%) and fluctuating (5.8%) types. Different trajectory groups exhibited significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes. Compared with that in the stable trajectory group, the oocyte yield in the rising trajectory group decreased and that in the fluctuating trajectory group increased. Of these participants, 884 underwent fresh ET cycles, with no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between the different trajectory groups. On ovulation trigger day, high LH levels predicted better pregnancy outcomes, indicating significant positive associations with the odds of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and live birth.
conclusionOocyte yield differed significantly among the LH trajectory groups, suggesting that LH dynamics during antagonist controlled ovarian stimulation may be relevant to treatment outcomes. For individuals with risk factors for a rising trajectory (e.g., advanced age, higher body mass index), closer monitoring of LH profiles may be warranted. For fresh ET cycles, trigger-day LH levels may merit heightened clinical attention.
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.