| Literature DB >> 26043911 |
M McLaughlin1, T W Kelsey, W H B Wallace, R A Anderson, E E Telfer.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The ability to accurately estimate a woman's ovarian reserve by non-invasive means is the goal of ovarian reserve prediction. It is not known whether a correlation exists between model-predicted estimates of ovarian reserve and data generated by direct histological analysis of ovarian tissue. The aim of this study was to compare mean non-growing follicle density values obtained from analysis of ovarian cortical tissue samples against ovarian volume models.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26043911 PMCID: PMC4531872 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0501-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet ISSN: 1058-0468 Impact factor: 3.412
Fig. 1a. Photomicrograph of ovarian tissue from a woman aged 30 years. Growing follicles are visible in the upper cortical region (indicated by arrows). b. Follicles are present in the cortex but not in the medulla; cortical medullary interface indicated by dotted line. c. Diagrammatic representation of tissue analysis methodology. All tissue sections were examined for the presence of follicles; only sections of follicles containing the oocyte nucleolus (black dot) were analysed (red circles)
Predicted MFD for the age range 16–37 years
| Age (years) | NGFs | Ovarian Vol. (mm3) | Cortical MFD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 147,912 | 6358 | 98 |
| 17 | 137,487 | 6896 | 84 |
| 18 | 127,238 | 7308 | 73 |
| 19 | 117,221 | 7576 | 65 |
| 20 | 107,493 | 7700 | 59 |
| 21 | 98,106 | 7695 | 54 |
| 22 | 89,105 | 7584 | 49 |
| 23 | 80,532 | 7399 | 46 |
| 24 | 72,419 | 7169 | 42 |
| 25 | 64,794 | 6924 | 39 |
| 26 | 57,676 | 6684 | 36 |
| 27 | 51,075 | 6467 | 33 |
| 28 | 44,997 | 6283 | 30 |
| 29 | 39,438 | 6137 | 27 |
| 30 | 34,387 | 6029 | 24 |
| 31 | 29,831 | 5956 | 21 |
| 32 | 25,747 | 5911 | 18 |
| 33 | 22,112 | 5887 | 16 |
| 34 | 18,897 | 5873 | 14 |
| 35 | 16,073 | 5856 | 12 |
| 36 | 13,607 | 5825 | 10 |
| 37 | 11,468 | 5770 | 8 |
Subject data for observed MFDs (n = 13)
| Age (years) | Procedure | Tissue analysed (mm3) | No. NGFs counted | Observed MFD NGF/mm3 | Predicted MFD NGF/mm3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Laparoscopy for fertility preservation | 2.1 | 189 | 90.0 | 98 |
| 22 | ECS | 1.17 | 95 | 81.8 | 49 |
| 23 | ECS | 1.63 | 81 | 49.7 | 46 |
| 23 | ECS | 2.23 | 62 | 27.8 | 46 |
| 25 | ECS | 1.70 | 61 | 35.9 | 39 |
| 27 | ECS | 1.70 | 57 | 33.5 | 33 |
| 29 | ECS | 1.70 | 41 | 24.0 | 27 |
| 30 | ECS | 1.68 | 33 | 19.7 | 24 |
| 30 | ECS | 1.55 | 46 | 29.6 | 24 |
| 32 | ECS | 1.62 | 40 | 24.7 | 18 |
| 33 | ECS | 1.75 | 44 | 25.1 | 16 |
| 33 | ECS | 1.52 | 42 | 27.7 | 16 |
| 37 | ECS | 1.64 | 16 | 9.8 | 8 |
ECS denotes elective caesarean section
Fig. 4Bland-Altman Plot – the x –axis represents means (i.e., half the sum of observed and predicted MFD values); the y – axis represents the differences (i.e., predicted MFD values subtracted form observed values). The solid horizontal line is the mean difference (2.6 NGFs) for our data (n = 13) which have coefficient of determination r2 = 0.003 (95 % CI 0.000–0.038), showing no trend between means and differences. The inner dotted horizontal lines are at one standard deviation (11.9 NGFs) from the mean difference; the outer dotted lines are at 1.96 standard deviations (23.3 NGFs). About 68 % of observations will have a difference in MFD between the inner limits of agreement; about 95 % of observations will have a difference in MFD between the outer limits of agreement
Fig. 2Observed and predicted MFD – predicted values are shown for ages 15 through 40 years in blue. Observed values (n = 13) are shown as green dots
Fig. 3Observed vs predicted MFD - the line of identity represents the idealised confluence of observed and predicted values. Blue squares indicate observed against predicted MFD values (n = 13). The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for observed against predicted MFDs is 0.87 (95 % CI 0.62–0.96, p = 0.001)
Criteria for external validation of the predictive model by the observations, together with results obtained from correlation and Bland-Altman analysis
| Criterion | Cutoff value | Own data ( | Published data ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation |
|
|
|
| Mean difference | <5 NGFs |
|
|
| Limits of agreement | 1 SD < 15 NGFs |
| 1 SD = 20.8 NGFs |
| Proportional error | r2 < 0.10 |
| r2 = 0.12 |
Bold font indicates that a criterion was met or exceeded. SD denotes standard deviation of the means and differences of observations and predictions as shown in Fig. 4. Published data were taken from Table 2 of [25]