Impact of ovarian reserve markers on oocyte maturity and embryological outcomes in <i>in vitro</i> fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: A retrospective cohort study

Soudabeh Sabetian; Fatemeh Dadgar; Zahra Esfandiari; Bahia Namavar Jahromi; Sareh Sareh Ashourzadeh; Somayyeh Somayyeh Safari; Sanaz Alaee

doi:10.5653/cerm.2025.08242

Clin Exp Reprod Med > Epub ahead of print

Sabetian, Dadgar, Esfandiari, Jahromi, Sareh Ashourzadeh, Somayyeh Safari, and Alaee: Impact of ovarian reserve markers on oocyte maturity and embryological outcomes in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: A retrospective cohort study

Original Article

Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 2025;cerm.2025.08242.

Published online: December 24, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2025.08242

Impact of ovarian reserve markers on oocyte maturity and embryological outcomes in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: A retrospective cohort study

Soudabeh Sabetian¹

, Fatemeh Dadgar², Zahra Esfandiari³, Bahia Namavar Jahromi^1,⁴

, Sareh Sareh Ashourzadeh^5,⁶, Somayyeh Somayyeh Safari^7,⁸, Sanaz Alaee^1,^9,^10,¹¹

¹Infertility Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

²Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

³School of Science, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

⁴Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

⁵Afzalipour Clinical Center for Infertility, Afzalipour Hospital, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁶Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

⁷Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran

⁸Clinical Research Development Center, Forghani Hospital, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran

⁹Department of Reproductive Biology, School of Advanced Medical Sciences and Technologies, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

¹⁰Stem Cells Technology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

¹¹Department of Natural Sciences, West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan

Corresponding author: Soudabeh Sabetian Infertility Research Center, 2nd floor, Mohammad Rasoul Allah Research Tower, Khalili St., Shiraz, Iran
Tel: +98-7136122227 Fax: +98-7137266811 E-mail: soudabehsabet@gmail.com

Co-corresponding author: Bahia Namavar Jahromi Infertility Research Center, 2nd floor, Mohammad Rasoul Allah Research Tower, Khalili St., Shiraz, Iran
Tel: +98-7136122227 Fax: +98-7137266811 E-mail: namavarprc@gmail.com

^*This article has been financially supported by the Vice Chancellor for Research of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (grant number of 26216).

Received May 21, 2025 Revised June 30, 2025 Accepted July 7, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

Despite advances in assisted reproductive technologies, predicting outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) remains difficult. Hormonal status, oocyte maturity, and ovarian reserve contribute to treatment variability. This study examined correlations among demographic, endocrine, and embryological parameters in women undergoing IVF and ICSI whose partners had normal semen profiles, and evaluated the effect of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels on outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 488 women aged 18 to 45 years who underwent IVF and ICSI between 2022 and 2024. Data included age, body mass index (BMI), infertility duration, and levels of FSH, luteinizing hormone, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), thyroid-stimulating hormone, and fasting blood sugar. Embryological variables were oocyte yield, maturity stages (germinal vesicle, metaphase I, and metaphase II [MII]), and embryo count. Pearson correlations and the Kruskal–Wallis test were used to compare groups stratified by FSH (<10, 10–20, >20 mIU/mL).

Results

BMI and infertility duration showed weak correlations with embryological outcomes. AMH correlated positively with embryo count (r=0.29, p<0.01). MII oocytes correlated strongly with oocyte yield (r=0.90, p<0.01) and moderately with embryo count (r=0.46, p<0.01). Women with FSH <10 mIU/mL had significantly higher oocyte yield, MII oocyte numbers, and embryo counts than those with FSH ≥10 mIU/mL (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Lower FSH and higher AMH are associated with better oocyte maturity and embryo yield. These markers may support individualized stimulation strategies to improve IVF and ICSI outcomes.

Keywords: Anti-Mullerian hormone; Embryonic development; Fertilization in vitro; Follicle stimulating hormone; Oocyte maturity; Ovarian reserve; Reproductive techniques, assisted; Sperm injections, intracytoplasmic

Introduction

Infertility affects approximately 10% to 15% of couples worldwide, with female factors accounting for nearly half of all cases [1]. In vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have transformed infertility management, providing hope to couples who might otherwise remain childless [2]. Despite ongoing technological progress, the success of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) continues to depend largely on patient-specific factors, including age, body mass index (BMI), ovarian reserve, and hormonal profiles [3-5].

Assessment of ovarian reserve is a critical aspect of predicting ovarian responsiveness to stimulation and the likelihood of achieving pregnancy through ART. Commonly used markers of ovarian reserve include follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and antral follicle count (AFC) [6-8]. Elevated baseline FSH has traditionally been linked to diminished ovarian reserve and poorer IVF outcomes, whereas AMH has emerged as a more stable and predictive marker of ovarian response [9,10]. Nonetheless, the interactions between demographic factors, hormonal parameters, and embryological outcomes remain complex and require further investigation.

Numerous studies have explored the relationships among oocyte yield, oocyte maturity, and embryo development in the context of ART outcomes [11-13]. It is well established that both the quantity and quality of retrieved oocytes—particularly the proportion of mature metaphase II (MII) oocytes—are key determinants of fertilization and subsequent embryo viability [14]. Furthermore, variations in oocyte maturity stages, including germinal vesicle (GV) and metaphase I (MI) stages, offer valuable insights into ovarian competence and overall reproductive potential [15].

Given the multifactorial nature of IVF/ICSI outcomes, a comprehensive understanding of how demographic and endocrine factors interact with embryological parameters is essential for optimizing treatment strategies and improving patient counseling. In particular, examining the role of baseline FSH in influencing oocyte retrieval, maturation, and embryogenesis is crucial, especially in cases of non-male factor infertility, where female parameters predominantly determine success.

In this study, we sought to evaluate correlations among patient demographics, hormonal profiles, and embryological outcomes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI with partners who have normal semen parameters. We further compared IVF/ICSI outcomes across different FSH categories to clarify the impact of ovarian reserve on treatment success. By identifying key predictors of oocyte competence and embryo development, our findings aim to contribute to the advancement of more individualized and effective ART protocols.

Methods

1. Study design and participants

This retrospective cohort study included 488 women who underwent IVF or ICSI between 2022 and 2024 at Hazrate Zainab Hospital, affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS). All participants had partners with normal semen parameters according to World Health Organization criteria, thereby excluding male factor infertility from the study.

Inclusion criteria were: women aged 18 to 45 years, candidates for IVF/ICSI, and the availability of complete clinical and laboratory data. Women with uterine abnormalities, known chromosomal abnormalities, autoimmune diseases, or male partner infertility factors were excluded. Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of SUMS under reference number IR.SUMS.REC.1401.318. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

2. Data collection

Demographic and clinical information were extracted from the infertility registry system (https://mdreg.mums.ac.ir/index.php). Data collected included patient age, BMI, age at menarche, duration of primary and secondary infertility, and underlying medical conditions (e.g., hypothyroidism). Baseline hormonal profiles measured included serum levels of FSH, luteinizing hormone (LH), AMH, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), and fasting blood sugar (FBS). IVF/ICSI outcomes recorded comprised: number of oocytes retrieved; number of GV-stage, MI-stage, and MII-stage oocytes; and the number of embryos generated.

3. Laboratory assessments

Baseline hormone levels were assessed on day 2 or 3 of the menstrual cycle using standard immunoassay techniques. Ovarian stimulation protocols were standardized per institutional guidelines, utilizing either gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists. Oocyte retrieval was performed 36 hours after administration of the human chorionic gonadotropin trigger, and oocytes were classified according to maturity stage (GV, MI, and MII). Fertilization was achieved using either IVF or ICSI, following established laboratory procedures.

4. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all demographic, clinical, and hormonal variables. Continuous data are presented as mean±standard deviation, while categorical variables are presented as percentages. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess associations between demographic parameters, hormonal profiles, and embryological outcomes. The strength of correlations was interpreted as follows: |r|<0.3 (weak), 0.3≤|r|<0.7 (moderate), and |r|≥0.7 (strong). A heatmap was generated to visually display the correlation matrix.

Comparisons of IVF/ICSI outcomes across different FSH categories (<10, 10–20, >20 mIU/mL) were conducted using the Kruskal–Wallis test, a nonparametric alternative to one-way analysis of variance. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 25.0 (IBM Co.).

Results

1. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics

A total of 488 women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment were included in this study. All participants had partners with normal sperm parameters; therefore, male factor infertility was not considered among the study variables. Patient demographic and hormonal data are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of participants was 34.41±10.49 years, and the mean BMI was 25.95±4.49 kg/m². The average age at menarche was 13.11±1.86 years. The mean duration of primary infertility was 6.05±4.48 years, while the mean duration of secondary infertility was 5.17±3.65 years. Endocrine assessment revealed a mean FSH level of 10.35±12.33 mIU/mL, a mean LH level of 6.65±7.77 mIU/mL, and a mean AMH level of 4.07±3.44 ng/mL. Metabolic and thyroid function testing showed a mean FBS of 93.02±10.06 mg/dL and a mean TSH level of 2.69±2.02 mIU/L.

2. Correlations among demographic, hormonal, and embryological parameters

To examine relationships among demographic characteristics, hormonal profiles, and embryological outcomes, a Pearson correlation matrix was generated and visualized as a heatmap (Figure 1).

3. Association of demographic factors with IVF/ICSI outcomes

Age, age at menarche, and BMI each demonstrated weak and non-significant correlations with the number of embryos generated: age (r=–0.064), age at menarche (r=–0.031), and BMI (r=–0.058). A modest positive correlation was observed between the duration of primary infertility and the number of embryos (r=0.117, p<0.05), suggesting that a longer duration of infertility may be associated with improved embryological outcomes. Conversely, secondary infertility was negatively correlated with embryo number (r=–0.185), though this association was not statistically significant.

4. Associations of hormonal parameters with embryological outcomes

Among the hormonal markers, AMH showed a significant positive correlation with the number of embryos generated (r=0.292, p<0.01), reinforcing its predictive value for ovarian response. FSH, LH, FBS, and TSH levels did not demonstrate significant correlations with embryo number.

5. Correlations between oocyte maturity stages and embryo yield

The number of oocytes retrieved showed a strong positive correlation with the number of embryos generated (r=0.488, p<0.01), highlighting the importance of oocyte quantity. The number of retrieved oocytes also strongly correlated with oocyte maturity stages as follows: GV-stage oocytes (r=0.471, p<0.01); MI-stage oocytes (r=0.440, p<0.01), and MII-stage oocytes (r=0.901, p<0.01).

The particularly strong correlation between MII-stage oocytes and total oocytes retrieved emphasizes the critical importance of mature oocyte collection for optimizing IVF/ICSI outcomes. The number of MII-stage oocytes also exhibited a strong positive correlation with embryo number (r=0.458, p<0.01).

6. Summary of correlation findings

Overall, demographic factors such as age and BMI had minimal influence on embryological outcomes. In contrast, markers of ovarian reserve, specifically AMH levels and the number of mature (MII-stage) oocytes, emerged as strong predictors of embryo development and IVF/ICSI success (Table 2).

7. Comparison of IVF/ICSI outcomes across FSH groups

IVF/ICSI outcomes were compared across three FSH categories: <10, 10–20, and >20 mIU/mL (Table 3, Figure 2). Kruskal–Wallis analysis demonstrated significant differences among the groups for the number of retrieved oocytes (p<0.001), MII-stage oocytes (p<0.001), GV-stage oocytes (p=0.018), and number of embryos generated (p<0.001). No significant difference was observed for MI-stage oocytes (p=0.467).

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that patients with FSH <10 mIU/mL had significantly higher numbers of retrieved oocytes, mature MII-stage oocytes, and embryos compared to those with FSH 10–20 mIU/mL (all p<0.001). No statistically significant differences were identified between the FSH >20 and 10–20 mIU/mL groups for any of the parameters assessed. Overall, these findings indicate that patients with FSH levels below 10 mIU/mL exhibit superior oocyte retrieval, maturation, and embryogenesis compared to those with intermediate or elevated FSH levels.

Discussion

This study evaluated the correlations between demographic, hormonal, and embryological parameters and assessed IVF/ICSI outcomes across different FSH groups in a large cohort of women with partners exhibiting normal semen parameters. Our findings demonstrated that lower FSH levels (<10 mIU/mL) were associated with significantly higher numbers of retrieved oocytes, mature MII-stage oocytes, and embryos compared to both intermediate (10–20 mIU/mL) and elevated (>20 mIU/mL) FSH groups.

The observed positive correlation between AMH levels and embryo numbers supports the existing literature emphasizing AMH as a reliable marker of ovarian reserve and a predictor of ovarian response [16,17]. Similarly, the strong correlation between the number of retrieved oocytes and MII-stage oocytes is consistent with previous studies highlighting the critical role of oocyte maturity in successful fertilization and embryo development [18,19]. However, although women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) often exhibit elevated AMH levels and a higher yield of oocytes, the developmental competence and fertilization potential of these oocytes may be impaired, resulting in suboptimal IVF/ICSI outcomes [20]. This paradox underscores the need for cautious interpretation of AMH levels in PCOS populations and highlights the importance of assessing both oocyte quantity and quality when predicting treatment success [21,22]. These findings reinforce the concept that oocyte competence, rather than oocyte quantity alone, is pivotal in determining IVF success. Notably, the strong association between MII-stage oocytes and embryo numbers further underscores the importance of retrieving mature oocytes for maximizing embryo development potential.

Comparative analysis across FSH groups revealed that women with FSH <10 mIU/mL had superior IVF outcomes, which is consistent with prior research indicating that lower baseline FSH levels are associated with better ovarian response and higher pregnancy rates [23,24]. Elevated FSH levels, which are typically indicative of diminished ovarian reserve, have been linked to poorer IVF outcomes due to reduced follicular recruitment and impaired oocyte quality [25,26].

Regarding oocyte maturity stages, our finding that GV-stage oocyte numbers differed significantly among FSH groups suggests that baseline ovarian reserve influences not only oocyte quantity but also developmental competence. This observation is in line with previous reports indicating that women with diminished ovarian reserve exhibit a higher proportion of immature oocytes [27]. Therefore, evaluating oocyte maturity profiles in addition to quantity could enhance individualized prognostication for IVF outcomes.

The clinical implications of these findings are significant. Baseline FSH levels should be carefully considered when counseling patients regarding IVF prognosis. Women with FSH levels <10 mIU/mL may expect more favorable outcomes, whereas those with elevated FSH should be counseled about potentially reduced oocyte yields and embryo numbers. Tailored stimulation protocols based on ovarian reserve markers could optimize outcomes and improve patient expectations [28,29]. Moreover, integrating additional markers such as AMH and AFC alongside FSH may provide a more comprehensive assessment of reproductive potential.

This study’s strengths include its large sample size, strict inclusion of non-male factor infertility cases, and comprehensive evaluation of multiple embryological outcomes. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. The retrospective design limits causal inference, and variations in stimulation protocols were not controlled. Furthermore, clinical pregnancy and live birth outcomes, which are key benchmarks for evaluating ART success, should be included in future prospective investigations to validate and extend our findings.

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that lower baseline FSH levels are significantly associated with improved oocyte retrieval, oocyte maturity, and embryo development outcomes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Among the hormonal and demographic factors evaluated, AMH levels and the number of mature MII-stage oocytes emerged as the strongest predictors of successful embryological outcomes. Our findings emphasize the critical role of ovarian reserve assessment, particularly baseline FSH and AMH measurements, in guiding clinical decision-making and patient counseling. These results support the need for individualized ovarian stimulation protocols tailored to each patient’s ovarian reserve status to optimize IVF/ICSI success rates. Further prospective studies evaluating embryo quality and clinical pregnancy outcomes are warranted to validate and expand upon these observations.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian), BNJ. Methodology: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian), FD, ZE. Formal analysis: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian). Data curation: FD, ZE. Funding acquisition: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian). Project administration: SS. (Soudabeh Sabetian), BNJ. Visualization: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian), BNJ, SA (Sareh Ashourzadeh), SS (Somayyeh Safari), SA (Sanaz Alaee). Software: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian). Validation: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian), FD, ZE, BNJ, SA (Sareh Ashourzadeh), SS (Somayyeh Safari), SA (Sanaz Alaee). Investigation: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian), FD, ZE, BNJ. Supervision: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian). Writing-original draft: SS (Soudabeh Sabetian), BNJ, SA (Sareh Ashourzadeh), SS (Somayyeh Safari), SA (Sanaz Alaee).

Figure 1.

Correlation matrix between demographic characteristics, hormonal profiles, and in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes. The heatmap illustrates the Pearson correlation coefficients among demographic parameters, hormonal profiles, and embryological outcomes. Color intensity reflects the strength and direction of correlations (blue: negative; red: positive). AMH, anti-Müllerian hormone; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; BMI, body mass index; LH, luteinizing hormone; FBS, fasting blood sugar; TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone; GV, germinal vesicle; MI, metaphase I; MII, metaphase II.

Figure 2.

Comparison of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes across follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) groups. (A) Retrieved oocytes, (B) germinal vesicle (GV)-stage oocytes, (C) metaphase I (MI)-stage oocytes, (D) metaphase II (MII)-stage oocytes, and (E) number of embryos were compared among patients with FSH <10, 10–20, and >20 mIU/mL. Error bars represent standard deviations. Statistical significance between groups was determined using the Mann–Whitney U test. Statistical significance was evaluated using the Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05). ns, not significant. ^a)p<0.01; ^b)p<0.001.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of the study population

Variable	Value
Age (yr)	34.41±10.49
Age at menarche (yr)	13.11±1.86
Body mass index (kg/m²)	25.95±4.49
Primary infertility (yr)	6.05±4.48
Secondary infertility (yr)	5.17±3.65
FSH (mIU/mL)	10.35±12.33
LH (mIU/mL)	6.65±7.77
AMH (ng/mL)	4.07±3.44
FBS (mg/dL)	93.02±10.06
TSH (mIU/L)	2.69±2.02

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; LH, luteinizing hormone; AMH, anti-Müllerian hormone; FBS, fasting blood sugar; TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone.

Table 2.

Correlation analysis among demographic, hormonal, and embryological parameters

Variable	Age	Age at menarche	BMI	Primary infertility	Secondary infertility	FSH	LH	AMH	FBS	TSH	GV	MI	MII	Oocytes	Embryos
AMH (r)	–0.378	–0.002	0.014	–0.004	0.212	–0.237	0.082	-	–0.042	–0.072	0.332	0.139	0.348	0.476	0.292
AMH (p)	0.000	0.967	0.771	0.935	0.066	0.000	0.088	-	0.417	0.157	0.000	0.037	0.000	0.000	0.000
FSH (r)	0.071	–0.024	–0.120	0.113	–0.038	-	0.344	–0.237	–0.033	0.236	0.168	–0.041	–0.151	–0.154	–0.057
FSH (p)	0.117	0.627	0.009	0.039	0.736	-	0.000	0.000	0.508	0.000	0.029	0.530	0.003	0.001	0.226
Retrieved oocytes (r)	–0.150	–0.022	–0.054	–0.048	–0.061	–0.154	0.065	0.476	0.044	–0.050	0.471	0.440	0.901	-	0.488
Retrieved oocytes (p)	0.001	0.669	0.256	0.393	0.591	0.001	0.183	0.000	0.397	0.335	0.000	0.000	0.000	-	0.000
Embryos (r)	–0.064	–0.031	–0.058	0.117	–0.185	–0.057	–0.058	0.292	0.077	0.080	0.032	0.132	0.458	0.488	-
Embryos (p)	0.173	0.552	0.222	0.038	0.096	0.226	0.229	0.000	0.140	0.118	0.682	0.042	0.000	0.000	-

BMI, body mass index; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; LH, luteinizing hormone; AMH, anti-Müllerian hormone; FBS, fasting blood sugar; TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone; GV, germinal vesicle; MI, metaphase I; MII, metaphase II.

Table 3.

Comparison of IVF/ICSI outcomes across FSH groups

FSH group (number)	Retrieved oocytes	GV-stage oocytes	MI-stage oocytes	MII-stage oocytes	Number of embryos
<10 (320)	12.87±8.89	2.09±1.55	2.18±1.43	8.97±6.25	8.09±6.75
10–20 (128)	7.47±4.83	1.89±1.85	1.92±1.13	5.58±3.84	5.13±4.75
>20 (40)	6.86±4.76	8.00±0.00	2.00±1.36	6.43±1.65	6.57±6.10

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

IVF, in vitro fertilization; ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; GV, germinal vesicle; MI, metaphase I; MII, metaphase II.

References

1. Obeagu EI, Njar VE, Obeagu GU. Infertility: prevalence and consequences. Int J Curr Res Chem Pharm Sci 2023;10:43-50.

2. Ashourzadeh S, Safari S, Hosseinisadat R, Kafaeinezhad R, Shokri S, Alaee S, et al. Comparative analysis of conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome, tubal factor infertility, and unexplained infertility whose partners exhibit normal semen parameters: a retrospective study of sibling oocytes. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2024;51:285-92.

3. Jirge PR, Patil MM, Gutgutia R, Shah J, Govindarajan M, Roy VS, et al. Ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles for varied patient profiles: an indian perspective. J Hum Reprod Sci 2022;15:112-25.

4. Sabetian S, Archin Dialameh P, Tanideh N, Gharesifard B, Ahmadi M, Valibeigi M, et al. Potential therapeutic properties of broccoli extract and soy isoflavones on improvement endometriosis and involved oxidative parameters. Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig 2024;45:131-7.

5. Parsanezhad ME, Jahromi BN, Rezaee S, Kooshesh L, Alaee S. The effect of four different gonadotropin protocols on oocyte and embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes in IVF/ICSI cycles; a randomized controlled trial. Iran J Med Sci 2017;42:57-65.

6. Sinha S, Sharan A, Sinha S. Anti-Mullerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve and function. Cureus 2022;14:e29214.

7. Cedars MI. Evaluation of female fertility-AMH and ovarian reserve testing. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2022;107:1510-9.

8. Jahromi BN, Borzou N, Parsanezhad ME, Anvar Z, Ghaemmaghami P, Sabetian S, et al. Associations of insulin resistance, sex hormone-binding globulin, triglyceride, and hormonal profiles in polycystic ovary syndrome: a cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed 2021;19:653-62.

9. Bentov Y, Weizel I. The management of IVF patients with diminished ovarian reserve. In: Bentov Y, Hershko-Klement A, editors. Half a century of in vitro fertilization: reflections and predictions. Springer; 2025. p. 225-62.

10. Harris BS, Jukic AM, Truong T, Nagle CT, Erkanli A, Steiner AZ, et al. Markers of ovarian reserve as predictors of future fertility. Fertil Steril 2023;119:99-106.

11. Broom JN. A retrospective study of oocyte yield on reproductive outcomes in assisted reproductive technology (ART) [master’s thesis]. Stellenbosch University; 2024.

12. Gonzalez MB, Robker RL, Rose RD. Obesity and oocyte quality: significant implications for ART and emerging mechanistic insights. Biol Reprod 2022;106:338-50.

13. Sabetian S, Jahromi BN, Feiz F, Castiglioni I, Cava C, Vakili S. Clinical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology during Covid-19 pandemic: a minireview of the current literature. J Health Sci Surveill Syst 2022;10:13-8.

14. Jamil M, Debbarh H, Kabit A, Ennaji M, Zarqaoui M, Senhaji WR, et al. Impact of the number of retrieved oocytes on IVF outcomes: oocyte maturation, fertilization, embryo quality and implantation rate. Zygote 2023;31:91-6.

15. Ferreira AF, Soares M, Almeida-Santos T, Ramalho-Santos J, Sousa AP. Aging and oocyte competence: a molecular cell perspective. WIREs Mech Dis 2023;15:e1613.

16. La Marca A, Capuzzo M, Longo M, Imbrogno MG, Spedicato GA, Fiorentino F, et al. The number and rate of euploid blastocysts in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles are strongly dependent on ovarian reserve and female age. Hum Reprod 2022;37:2392-401.

17. Heidary Z, Masoumi M, Dashtkoohi M, Sharifinejad N, Dehghan Tarzjani M, Ghaemi M, et al. The association of AMH level with the number and quality of oocytes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: a single-center study. J Reprod Infertil 2024;25:38-45.

18. Huang W, Li X, Yang H, Huang H. The impact of maternal age on aneuploidy in oocytes: reproductive consequences, molecular mechanisms, and future directions. Ageing Res Rev 2024;97:102292.

19. Ntostis P, Iles D, Kokkali G, Vaxevanoglou T, Kanavakis E, Pantou A, et al. The impact of maternal age on gene expression during the GV to MII transition in euploid human oocytes. Hum Reprod 2021;37:80-92.

20. Mostinckx L, Goyens E, Mackens S, Roelens C, Boudry L, Uvin V, et al. Clinical outcomes from ART in predicted hyperresponders: in vitro maturation of oocytes versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 2024;39:586-94.

21. Jiang L, Sun Y, Pan P, Li L, Yang D, Huang J, et al. Live birth rate per fresh embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate in patients with PCOS under the POSEIDON classification: a retrospective study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2024;15:1348771.

22. Petrogiannis N, Filippa M, Chatzovoulou K, Petrogiannis S, Filippas I, Grimbizis G, et al. Add-on technologies that aim to improve oocyte quality and embryo implantation potential. Medicina (Kaunas) 2025;61:367.

23. Sun PP, Zhang YM, Zhu HY, Sun N, Ma HG. The relationship between serum FSH level and ovarian response during controlled ovarian stimulation. Ginekol Pol 2023;94:470-5.

24. Dong L, Lian F, Wu H, Xiang S, Li Y, Wei C, et al. Reproductive outcomes of dual trigger with combination GnRH agonist and hCG versus trigger with hCG alone in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles: a retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022;22:583.

25. Scantamburlo VM, Linsingen RV, Centa LJR, Toso KFD, Scaraboto D, Araujo Junior E, et al. Association between decreased ovarian reserve and poor oocyte quality. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2021;64:532-9.

26. Zhu Q, Li Y, Ma J, Ma H, Liang X. Potential factors result in diminished ovarian reserve: a comprehensive review. J Ovarian Res 2023;16:208.

27. Christodoulaki A, Boel A, Tang M, De Roo C, Stoop D, Heindryckx B, et al. Prospects of germline nuclear transfer in women with diminished ovarian reserve. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021;12:635370.

28. Hariton E, Pavlovic Z, Fanton M, Jiang VS. Applications of artificial intelligence in ovarian stimulation: a tool for improving efficiency and outcomes. Fertil Steril 2023;120:8-16.

29. Conforti A, Tüttelmann F, Alviggi C, Behre HM, Fischer R, Hu L, et al. Effect of genetic variants of gonadotropins and their receptors on ovarian stimulation outcomes: a Delphi consensus. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021;12:797365.