Thornton KL. Advances in assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2000;27:517–27.
Google Scholar
Hu X, Luo Y, Huang K, Li Y, Xu Y, Zhou C, et al. New perspectives on criteria for the determination of HCG trigger timing in GnRH antagonist cycles. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3691.
Google Scholar
Poulain M, Younes R, Pirtea P, Trichereau J, de Ziegler D, Benammar A, et al. Impact of ovarian yield-number of total and mature oocytes per antral follicular count-on live birth occurrence after IVF treatment. Front Med. 2021;8:702010.
Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2703–7.
Google Scholar
Germond M, Urner F, Chanson A, Primi MP, Wirthner D, Senn A. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The cumulated singleton/twin delivery rates per oocyte pick-up: the CUSIDERA and CUTWIDERA. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2442–4.
Google Scholar
Vaughan DA, Leung A, Resetkova N, Ruthazer R, Penzias AS, Sakkas D, et al. How many oocytes are optimal to achieve multiple live births with one stimulation cycle? The one-and-done approach. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:397–e4043.
Google Scholar
Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Parra J, Pellicer A, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including ∼15,000 women. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:661–e6701.
Google Scholar
Wu CX, Zhang T, Shu L, Huang J, Diao FY, Ding W, et al. [Cumulative live birth rates per oocytes retrieved cycle: evaluation of clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2018;53:160–6. Chinese.
Google Scholar
Drakopoulos P, Errázuriz J, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, Vaiarelli A, Pluchino N, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in in-vitro fertilization. Minerva Ginecol. 2019;71:207–10.
Google Scholar
Bosch E, Ezcurra D. Individualised controlled ovarian stimulation (iCOS): maximising success rates for assisted reproductive technology patients. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:82.
Google Scholar
Popovic-Todorovic B, Loft A, Lindhard A, Bangsbøll S, Andersson AM, Andersen AN. A prospective study of predictive factors of ovarian response in ‘standard’ IVF/ICSI patients treated with Recombinant FSH. A suggestion for a Recombinant FSH dosage normogram. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:781–7.
Google Scholar
Howles CM, Saunders H, Alam V, Engrand P, FSH Treatment Guidelines Clinical Panel. Predictive factors and a corresponding treatment algorithm for controlled ovarian stimulation in patients treated with Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) procedures. An analysis of 1378 patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22:907–18.
Google Scholar
Yovich J, Stanger J, Hinchliffe P. Targeted gonadotrophin stimulation using the PIVET algorithm markedly reduces the risk of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24:281–92.
Google Scholar
Arce J-C, La Marca A, Mirner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1644–53.
Google Scholar
Lan VTN, Linh NK, Tuong HM, Wong PC, Howles CM. Anti-Müllerian hormone versus antral follicle count for defining the starting dose of FSH. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:390–9.
Google Scholar
Magnusson Å, Nilsson L, Oleröd G, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Bergh C. The addition of anti-Müllerian hormone in an algorithm for individualized hormone dosage did not improve the prediction of ovarian response—a randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:811–9.
Google Scholar
Harrison RF, Jacob S, Spillane H, Mallon E, Hennelly B. A prospective randomized clinical trial of differing starter doses of Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin-beta) for first time in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment cycles. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:23–31.
Google Scholar
Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:611–5.
Google Scholar
Lekamge DN, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Increased gonadotrophin stimulation does not improve IVF outcomes in patients with predicted poor ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25:515–21.
Google Scholar
Olivennes F, Howles CM, Borini A, Germond M, Trew G, Wikland M, et al. Individualizing FSH dose for assisted reproduction using a novel algorithm: the CONSORT study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:195–204.
Google Scholar
Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Vallone R, Venturella R, Staiano S, et al. Understanding ovarian hypo-response to exogenous gonadotropin in ovarian stimulation and its new proposed marker-the follicle-to-oocyte (FOI) index. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:589.
Google Scholar
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Kobanawa M. The gonadotropins starting dose calculator, which can be adjusted the target number of oocytes and stimulation duration days to achieve individualized controlled ovarian stimulation in Japanese patients. Reprod Med Biol. 2023;22:e12499.
Google Scholar
Iliodromiti S, Salje B, Dewailly D, Fairburn C, Fanchin R, Fleming R, et al. Non-equivalence of anti-Müllerian hormone automated assays-clinical implications for use as a companion diagnostic for individualised gonadotrophin dosing. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1710–5.
Google Scholar
Efron B. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1–22.
Google Scholar
Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2013;48:452–8.
Google Scholar
Calconic. (2025). Calconic – Custom Online Calculators. Retrieved March 9, 2025, from https://www.calconic.com/
Vaiarelli A, Zacà C, Spadoni V, Cimadomo D, Conforti A, Alviggi C, et al. Clinical and laboratory key performance indicators in IVF: a consensus between the Italian society of fertility and sterility and reproductive medicine (SIFES-MR) and the Italian society of Embryology, reproduction and research (SIERR). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023;40:1479–94.
Google Scholar
Clinic PI, Working Group, Vlaisavljevic V, Apter S, Capalbo A, D’Angelo A, Gianaroli L, et al. The Maribor consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of performance indicators for clinical practice in ART. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021:hoab022.
Abbara A, Vuong LN, Ho VNA, Clarke SA, Jeffers L, Comninos AN, et al. Follicle size on day of trigger most likely to yield a mature oocyte. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:193.
Google Scholar
Fanton M, Cho JH, Baker VL, Loewke K. A higher number of oocytes retrieved is associated with an increase in fertilized oocytes, blastocysts, and cumulative live birth rates. Fertil Steril. 2023;119:762–9.
Google Scholar
Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31:370–6.
Google Scholar
Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Lederman A, Gibbons W, Schattman GL, et al. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2483–91.
Google Scholar
Canon C, Leibner L, Fanton M, Chang Z, Suraj V, Lee JA, et al. Optimizing oocyte yield utilizing a machine learning model for dose and trigger decisions, a multi-center, prospective study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:18721.
Google Scholar
Letterie G, Mac Donald A. Artificial intelligence in in vitro fertilization: a computer decision support system for day-to-day management of ovarian stimulation during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:1026–31.
Google Scholar
Hariton E, Chi EA, Chi G, Morris JR, Braatz J, Rajpurkar P, et al. A machine learning algorithm can optimize the day of trigger to improve in vitro fertilization outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:1227–35.
Google Scholar
Ectors FJ, Vanderzwalmen P, Van Hoeck J, Nijs M, Verhaegen G, Delvigne A, et al. Relationship of human follicular diameter with oocyte fertilization and development after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2002–5.
Google Scholar
Ovarian Stimulation TEGGO, Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, et al. [ESHRE guideline]. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020:hoaa009.
Google Scholar
Wittmaack FM, Kreger DO, Blasco L, Tureck RW, Mastroianni L Jr, Lessey BA. Effect of follicular size on oocyte retrieval, fertilization, cleavage, and embryo quality in in vitro fertilization cycles: a 6-year data collection. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:1205–10.
Google Scholar
Wirleitner B, Okhowat J, Vištejnová L, Králíčková M, Karlíková M, Vanderzwalmen P, et al. Relationship between follicular volume and oocyte competence, blastocyst development and live-birth rate: optimal follicle size for oocyte retrieval. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):118–25.
Google Scholar
McCulloh DH, Kutchukhidze N, Charkviani T, Zhorzholadze T, Barbakadze T, Munné S, et al. Follicle size indicates oocyte maturity and blastocyst formation but not blastocyst euploidy following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation of oocyte donors. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(3):545–56.
Google Scholar
Teissier MP, Chable H, Paulhac S, Aubard Y. Comparison of follicle steroidogenesis from normal and polycystic ovaries in women undergoing IVF: relationship between steroid concentrations, follicle size, oocyte quality and fecundability. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2471–7.
Google Scholar
Maghraby H, Saleh H, Fourtia IL, Rasheed S, Elmahdy M, Abdelbadie AS, et al. The dilemma of the trigger timing in IVF: a review. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2024;29:8.
Shapiro BS, Rasouli MA, Verma K, Raman A, Garner FC, Aguirre M, et al. The effect of ovarian follicle size on oocyte and embryology outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2022;117:1170–6.
Google Scholar
Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA, La Marca A, Mol BWJ, Marjoribanks J, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD012693.
Google Scholar
Alport B, Case A, Lim H, Baerwald A. Does the ovarian stimulation phase length predict in vitro fertilization outcomes? Int J Fertil Steril. 2011;5:134–41.
Google Scholar
Tian LF, Tan J, Zou Y, Su Q, Li Y, Xu DF, et al. Mild starting dosage ovarian stimulation combined with a modified prolonged GnRH-a protocol improved IVF/ICSI outcomes in normal ovarian responders. Arch Med Sci. 2019;15:1294–300.
Google Scholar
La Marca A, Papaleo E, Grisendi V, Argento C, Giulini S, Volpe A. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. BJOG. 2012;119:1171–9.
Google Scholar
Barbakadze L, Kristesashvili J, Khonelidze N, Tsagareishvili G. The correlations of anti-Mullerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and antral follicle count in different age groups of infertile women. Int J Fertil Steril. 2015;8:393–8.
Google Scholar
Shahrokh Tehraninezhad E, Mehrabi F, Taati R, Kalantar V, Aziminekoo E, Tarafdari A. Analysis of ovarian reserve markers (AMH, FSH, AFC) in different age strata in IVF/ICSI patients. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2016;14:501–6.
Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org, practice committee of the American society for reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114:1151–7.
Tsakos E, Tolikas A, Daniilidis A, Asimakopoulos B. Predictive value of anti-Müllerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and antral follicle count on the outcome of ovarian stimulation in women following GnRH-antagonist protocol for IVF/ET. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290:1249–53.
Google Scholar
Del Gallego R, Lawrenz B, Ata B, Kalafat E, Melado L, Elkhatib I, et al. Association of ‘normal’ early follicular FSH concentrations with unexpected poor or suboptimal response when ovarian reserve markers are reassuring: a retrospective cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024;48:103701.
Google Scholar
La Marca A, Papaleo E, Alviggi C, Ruvolo G, De Placido G, Candiani M, et al. The combination of genetic variants of the FSHB and FSHR genes affects serum FSH in women of reproductive age. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1369–74.
Google Scholar
Achrekar SK, Modi DN, Desai SK, Mangoli VS, Mangoli RV, Mahale SD. Poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation is associated with FSH receptor polymorphism. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:509–15.
Google Scholar
Sudo S, Kudo M, Wada S, Sato O, Hsueh AJW, Fujimoto S. Genetic and functional analyses of polymorphisms in the human FSH receptor gene. Mol Hum Reprod. 2002;8:893–9.
Google Scholar
Perez Mayorga M, Gromoll J, Behre HM, Gassner C, Nieschlag E, Simoni M. Ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulation depends on the FSH receptor genotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85:3365–9.
Google Scholar
Jun JK, Yoon JS, Ku SY, Choi YM, Hwang KR, Park SY, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone receptor gene polymorphism and ovarian responses to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF-ET. J Hum Genet. 2006;51:665–70.
Google Scholar
Behre HM, Greb RR, Mempel A, Sonntag B, Kiesel L, Kaltwasser P, et al. Significance of a common single nucleotide polymorphism in exon 10 of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) receptor gene for the ovarian response to FSH: a Pharmacogenetic approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2005;15:451–6.
Google Scholar
Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC. Impact of mutations and polymorphisms of gonadotrophins and their receptors on the outcome of controlled ovarian stimulation. In: Ghumman S, ed. Principles and practice of controlled ovarian stimulation in ART. New Delhi: Springer, 2015. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1686-5_14. Accessed November 18, 2024.
Alviggi C, Conforti A, Caprio F, Gizzo S, Noventa M, Strina I, et al. In estimated good prognosis patients could unexpected hyporesponse to controlled ovarian stimulation be related to genetic polymorphisms of FSH receptor? Reprod Sci. 2016;23:1103–8.
Google Scholar
Olsson H, Sandström R, Grundemar L. Different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) derived from a human cell line compared with rFSH from a non-human cell line. J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;54:1299–307.
Google Scholar
FERRING INTERNATIONAL CENTER SA. WO2009127826 – Recombinant FSH including alpha 2,3 and alpha 2,6 sialylation. Available at: https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009127826. Accessed November 30, 2022.
Nyboe Andersen A, Nelson SM, Fauser BC, García-Velasco JA, Klein BM, Arce JC, ESTHER-1 study group. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:387–e3964.
Google Scholar
Qiao J, Zhang Y, Liang X, Ho T, Huang HY, Kim SH, et al. A randomised controlled trial to clinically validate follitropin delta in its individualised dosing regimen for ovarian stimulation in Asian IVF/ICSI patients. Hum Reprod. 2021;36:2452–62.
Google Scholar
Kobanawa M, Yoshida J. Differences in follicle development and hormone dynamics between controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using follitropin delta and that using follitropin alfa. FandR. 2023;05:79–86.
Abbara A, Patel A, Hunjan T, Clarke SA, Chia G, Eng PC, et al. FSH requirements for follicle growth during controlled ovarian stimulation. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:579.
Google Scholar
van Weissenbruch MM, Schoemaker HC, Drexhage HA, Schoemaker J. Pharmaco-dynamics of human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). The importance of the FSH concentration in initiating follicular growth in polycystic ovary-like disease. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:813–21.
Google Scholar
Schipper I, Hop WC, Fauser BC. The follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) threshold/window concept examined by different interventions with exogenous FSH during the follicular phase of the normal menstrual cycle: duration, rather than magnitude, of FSH increase affects follicle development. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83:1292–8.
Google Scholar
Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Follicle-stimulating hormone and advanced follicle development in the human. Arch Med Res. 2001;32:595–600.
Google Scholar
de Koning CH, Schoemaker J, Lambalk CB. Estimation of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) threshold for initiating the final stages of follicular development in women with elevated FSH levels in the early follicular phase. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:650–3.
Google Scholar
Fatemi H, Bilger W, Denis D, Griesinger G, La Marca A, Longobardi S, et al. Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007–2017). Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021;19:68.
Google Scholar
Noyes N, Fino ME, Krey L, McCaffrey C, Adler A, Grifo J. Embryo biopsy: the fate of abnormal pronuclear embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(6):782–8.
Google Scholar
ESHRE Guideline Group on Good Practice in IVF Labs, De los Santos MJ, Apter S, Coticchio G, Debrock S, Lundin K, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Hum Reprod. 2016;31(4):685–6.