Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42857367›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2026

Ovarian responsiveness during random-start stimulation and DuoStim in women: comparative insights from domestic animal models.

Don R Bergfelt

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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

1 author.

Don R BergfeltCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, Orange Park, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In women, recognition of sequential follicular waves throughout the menstrual cycle established the physiologic basis for random-start ovarian stimulation outside the conventional early follicular phase and for DuoStim within a single cycle. These approaches reduce treatment delays and, in the case of DuoStim, provide two oocyte-retrieval opportunities within a shortened interval, thereby benefiting fertility preservation and women with restricted reproductive windows. However, stimulation begins under ovarian physiologic and endocrine conditions that may differ even within the same menstrual-cycle phase according to follicular-wave stage, dominant follicle status, the recruitable follicular cohort, and corpus luteum maturity and function. Such heterogeneity at stimulation initiation may contribute to variability in ovarian responsiveness and limit the predictability of ovarian-response outcomes. This review integrates clinical evidence for random-start ovarian stimulation and DuoStim in women with basic and applied findings from cattle and mares, while recognizing the human protocols as related but physiologically distinct. In monovulatory domestic animal models, follicular-wave emergence, dominant follicle status, and luteal function can be characterized and experimentally manipulated before gonadotropin stimulation, permitting mechanistic relationships to be evaluated more directly than in women. Spontaneous-cycle random-start stimulation is also distinguished from the second stimulation of DuoStim, which begins in a treatment-modified, post-retrieval luteal environment following follicular-phase stimulation, final oocyte-maturation triggering, and oocyte retrieval. Comparative studies demonstrate similarities in follicular-wave dynamics among women, cattle, and mares. Experimental and production-management studies in cattle provide direct evidence that dominant follicle status and corpus luteum maturity and function influence follicular recruitment, endocrine conditions, and ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation. Studies in mares provide complementary mechanistic evidence concerning control of wave emergence, follicle selection, and ovulation. Although they do not establish equivalent regulation in women, these comparative findings provide a mechanistic framework for identifying measurable follicular, luteal, and endocrine variables that may explain response variability, improve prediction, and inform optimization of stimulation strategies. Accordingly, the central hypothesis is that menstrual-cycle phase alone does not adequately characterize the heterogeneous ovarian environment at stimulation initiation. Evidence is strongest for ovarian-response and time-efficiency outcomes, whereas evidence for improved downstream reproductive outcomes, particularly pregnancy and live birth, remains limited and variable.

Indexed as

Ovarian FollicleOvaryOvulation InductionAnimalsAnimals, DomesticCattleFemaleHorsesHumansMenstrual CycleModels, Animaldomestic animal modelsduostimfollicular wavesovarian responsivenessovarian synchronizationrandom-start ovarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID42857367
PMCPMC13650537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.