Journal of Infertility and Reproductive Biology

Published date: Sep 20 2025

Journal Title: Journal of Infertility and Reproductive Biology

Issue title: Journal of Infertility and Reproductive Biology: Volume 13, Issue 3

Pages: 104 - 111

DOI: 10.18502/jirb.v13i3.19431

Puvithra Thanikachalamdr.puvithra@gmail.comDepartment of Reproductive Medicine & Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

Irene Kezia samuelirenejustin10@gmail.comDepartment of Reproductive Medicine & Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

Sowbarnika Arunkumarsowbee01@gmail.comDepartment of Reproductive Medicine & Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

Suwatha Pugazhendisweathaanjugam@gmail.comDepartment of Reproductive Medicine & Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between female age and ovarian reserve markers, specifically Day 2 follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and antral follicle count (AFC), and to determine the statistical significance of these relationships. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 371 women, aged 22 to 42 years, who were recruited for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) at a university-affiliated tertiary center between 2008 and 2013. Inclusion criteria required no history of ovarian surgery or hormonal therapy within the preceding three months, while exclusion criteria comprised a diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or other endocrine disorders (e.g., thyroid dysfunction, hyperprolactinemia). Descriptive statistics summarized the data, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the relationships. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The analysis revealed a weak, non-significant positive correlation between age and Day 2 FSH (r = 0.18, p = 0.446) and a strong, significant negative correlation between age and AFC (r = -0.61, p = 0.004). These findings indicate that while Day 2 FSH is not significantly associated with age, AFC demonstrates a strong inverse relationship with advancing age, supporting its utility as a sensitive and reliable marker for ovarian reserve.

Keywords: follicle-stimulating hormone, antral follicle count, age, ovarian reserve, fertility

[1] Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev. 2009;30(5):465–493. doi: 10.1210/er.2009-0006.

[2] La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2):113– 130. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmp036.

[3] Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(6):1151–1157. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.134.

[4] Galati G, Reschini M, Chine’ A, Benaglia L, Vigano’ P, Somigliana E, et al. Ovarian reserve does not influence natural conception: insights from infertile women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;310(5):2691– 2696. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07741-6.

[5] Nelson SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):963–969. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.051.

[6] He Y, Liu L, Yao F, Sun C, Meng M, Lan Y, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and interactions between serum basal FSH/LH and ovarian sensitivity index. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1086924. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1086924.

[7] Ulrich ND, Marsh EE. Ovarian reserve testing: A review of the options, their applications, and their limitations. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2019;62(2):228–237. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000445.

[8] Greenseid K, Jindal S, Zapantis A, Nihsen M, Hurwitz J, Pal L. Declining ovarian reserve adversely influences granulosa cell viability. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2611–2615. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.065.

[9] Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, Yildiz S, Mutlu I, Arisoy O, et al. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(5):657–665. doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-9975-3.

[10] Salemi F, Jambarsang S, Kheirkhah A, Salehi-Abargouei A, Ahmadnia Z, Hosseini HA, et al. The best ovarian reserve marker to predict ovarian response following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2024;13:303. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02684-0.

[11] Jain S, Shukla RC, Jain M, Mishra RN. Age-Specific Nomograms for Antral Follicle Count in Fertile and Infertile Indian Women: A Comparative Study. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2023;33(4):463–470. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1768964.

[12] Loy SL, Cheung YB, Fortier MV, Ong CL, Tan HH, Nadarajah S, et al. Age-related nomograms for antral follicle count and anti-Mullerian hormone for subfertile Chinese women in Singapore. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189830.

[13] Das S, Bhattacharya N, Mahata R, Ghosh S, Bhar AS, Srivastava P. Correlation of Follicle-stimulating Hormone, Anti-Mullerian Hormone, and Antral Follicle Count with Age in Ovarian Reserve Testing. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2024;14(3):162–168. doi: 10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_81_24.

[14] Banker M, Iglesias C, Mahahan N, Herrero L, Pellicer A, García-Velasco JA. Ethnic differences in ovarian aging between Caucasian and Indian women. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):S152–S153. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.050.

[15] Gunasheela D, Murali R, Appaneravanda LC, Gerstl B, Kumar A, Sengeetha N, et al. Age-Specific Distribution of Serum Anti-Mullerian Hormone and Antral Follicle Count in Indian Infertile Women. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2021;14(4):372–379. doi: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_65_21.

[16] Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Batcha M, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Campbell B, et al. The cohort of antral follicles measuring 2–6 mm reflects the quantitative status of ovarian reserve as assessed by serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1775–1781. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.022.

[17] Broekmans FJ, Knauff EAH, te Velde ER, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2007;18(2):58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2007.01.004.

[18] Kim C, Slaughter JC, Wang ET, Appiah D, Schreiner P, Leader B, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, antral follicle count, and risk of menopause within 5 years. Maturitas. 2017;102:18– 25. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.04.018.

[19] Ng EHY, Yeung WSB, Fong DYT, Ho PC. Effects of age on hormonal and ultrasound markers of ovarian reserve in Chinese women with proven fertility. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(10):2169–2174. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg404.

[20] Zhou SJ, Sun TC, Song LL, Yang M, Sun XP, Tian L. The status and comparison of ovarian reserve between fertile and infertile healthy Chinese women of reproductive age. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(17):e25361. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025361.

[21] Haadsma ML, Bukman A, Groen H, Roeloffzen EMA, Groenewoud ER, Heineman MJ, et al. The number of small antral follicles (2-6 mm) determines the outcome of endocrine ovarian reserve tests in a subfertile population. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2007;22(7):1925–1931. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem081.

[22] Sunkara SK, Schwarze JE, Orvieto R, Fischer R, Dahan MH, Esteves SC, et al. Expert opinion on refined and extended key performance indicators for individualized ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2025;123(4):653–664. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.10.001.