The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Anti-Müllerian Hormone Levels in the Spontaneous Menstrual Cycle Do Not Show Substantial Fluctuation
Open accessAbstract
Context: Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), a quantitative marker for ovarian reserve, has been suggested to be independent of the classical endocrine fluctuations of the menstrual cycle. Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether AMH levels are constant throughout the menstrual cycle, compared with those of FSH, LH, and estradiol. Design/Patients: Frequent blood sampling was performed in 44 fertile, regularly cycling, female volunteers during one full menstrual cycle. Setting: The study was conducted at a university hospital. Main Outcome Measures: AMH, FSH, LH, and estradiol measurements were allocated to one of seven cycle phases, and a multilevel analysis was performed. Consistent fluctuation patterns were tested by fitting sine patterns to the data. Finally, the frequency in which randomly selected individual samples would remain in one of five preset level categories (quintiles) for each of the variables was studied. Results: A sine pattern fitted to the AMH data was not statistically significant (P = 0.40). In contrast, sine patterns for FSH, LH, and estradiol were highly significant. Comparing the seven cycle phases, no significant differences could be observed between phase-specific AMH levels (P = 0.06). Repeated selection of AMH samples for each individual showed that in 71.5% of selections, AMH values remained in the same quintile, whereas in 27.9% values fell in an adjacent quintile. Conclusions: AMH levels measured through a full menstrual cycle did not show consistent fluctuation patterns in contrast to levels of FSH, LH, and estradiol. Furthermore, random fluctuations were small, indicating that AMH can be relied on as a cycle-independent marker for ovarian reserve.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Characterization of Ovarian Follicular Wave Dynamics in Women1
Baerwald, A. R., Adams, G. P., & Pierson, R. A. (2003) · Biology of Reproduction · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.103.017772 · Cited by 359
Cited by
Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences
Broekmans, F. J., Soules, M. R., & Fauser, B. C. (2009) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2009-0006 · Cited by 1,248
Self-citationRaffi, F., Metwally, M., & Amer, S. (2012) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2012-1558 · Cited by 546
Hagen, C. P., Aksglaede, L., Sørensen, K., Main, K. M., Boas, M., Cleemann, L., Holm, K., Gravholt, C. H., Andersson, A.-M., Pedersen, A. T., et al. (2010) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2010-0930 · Cited by 383
Streuli, I., de Ziegler, D., Gayet, V., Santulli, P., Bijaoui, G., de Mouzon, J., & Chapron, C. (2012) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/des274 · Cited by 171
Chen, Y., Pei, H., Chang, Y., Chen, M., Wang, H., Xie, H., & Yao, S. (2014) · Journal of Ovarian Research · doi:10.1186/s13048-014-0108-0 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Hehenkamp, W. J. K., Looman, C. W. N., Themmen, A. P. N., de Jong, F. H., te Velde, E. R., & Broekmans, F. J. M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
- Publisher
- The Endocrine Society
- Published
- 2006-10-01
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 4057-4063
- ISSN
- 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
- 1945-7197
- OpenAlex
- W2032920408
- Cited by
- 509
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.