Evidence mapPaperPMID 42238243Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026

Luteinizing hormone dynamics during progestin-primed ovarian stimulation do not predict follicular output in women with normo-ovarian reserve.

Fazilet Kubra Boynukalin, Meral Gultomruk, Neslihan Sonmez, Peter Humaidan, Mustafa Bahceci, Gurkan Bozdag

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Fazilet Kubra BoynukalinInfertility Department, Bahceci Fulya In Vitro Fertilization Center, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Meral GultomrukR&D Department, Bahceci Health Group, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Neslihan SonmezR&D Department, Bahceci Health Group, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Peter HumaidanDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mustafa BahceciInfertility Department, Bahceci Fulya In Vitro Fertilization Center, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Gurkan BozdagInfertility Department, Bahceci Fulya In Vitro Fertilization Center, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has emerged as an effective alternative to conventional pituitary suppression strategies in assisted reproductive technology cycles. While suppression of luteinizing hormone (LH) during PPOS is well established, the clinical relevance of dynamic LH changes during stimulation remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether serial LH dynamics are associated with follicular output in women with non-low ovarian reserve undergoing PPOS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 616 ovarian stimulation cycles performed using a PPOS protocol with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) between January 2019 and January 2025. Serum LH concentrations were measured at three predefined time points: baseline (cycle day 2-3), mid-stimulation (day 6-7), and trigger day. LH dynamics were assessed using calculated changes between time points (ΔLH1, ΔLH2, ΔLH3). Ovarian response was evaluated using the follicle-to-oocyte index (FOI), defined as the ratio of retrieved oocytes to antral follicle count (AFC). Patients were categorized as optimal responders (FOI ≥50%) or suboptimal responders (FOI <50%). Results: Among the 616 cycles analyzed, 549 patients (89.1%) demonstrated an optimal ovarian response, whereas 67 patients (10.9%) had a suboptimal response. Serum LH concentrations declined during ovarian stimulation in the overall cohort; however, LH levels were comparable between groups at all measured time points. Baseline LH levels were similar between optimal and suboptimal responders (7.21 ± 2.62 vs 7.13 ± 2.79 IU/L, p=0.86), as were mid-stimulation LH levels (6.43 ± 3.54 vs 6.43 ± 4.35 IU/L, p=0.99) and trigger-day LH levels (3.97 ± 2.75 vs 3.92 ± 2.41 IU/L, p=0.88). Dynamic LH changes during stimulation did not differ significantly between groups, including ΔLH1 (-0.77 ± 3.01 vs -0.70 ± 3.50 IU/L, p=0.843), ΔLH2 (-2.47 ± 2.78 vs -2.52 ± 3.13 IU/L, p=0.890), and ΔLH3 (-3.24 ± 2.78 vs -3.21 ± 2.40 IU/L, p=0.936). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, female age (OR 0.909, 95% CI 0.853-0.969, p=0.004) and AFC (OR 0.916, 95% CI 0.892-0.941, p<0.001) were independently associated with ovarian response, whereas LH-related parameters were not significant predictors of follicular output. Conclusion: In women with non-low ovarian reserve undergoing PPOS, serum LH levels decline during stimulation, but their absolute values and dynamic changes are not associated with follicular output.

Indexed as

Luteinizing HormoneOvarian FollicleOvarian ReserveOvulation InductionProgestinsAdultFemaleFollicle Stimulating HormoneHumansRetrospective StudiesFollicle Stimulating HormoneLuteinizing HormoneProgestinsfollicle-to-oocyte indexIVF (ICSI)LHovarian stimulation (OS)PPOSsuboptimal response

Identifiers

PMID42238243
PMCPMC13226002

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.