{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028695652173913042, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.502824858757062, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Agonist or antagonist: what is preferable for in vitro fertilization?

Control of ovarian stimulation with gonadotropin is a key factor in the success of IVF. Combining GnRH-analogs (agonists or antagonist) with stimulation protocols became the standard of care in all IVF treatments, with the agonist accounting for more than three-fourth of the treatments. GnRH-antagonists (Cetrotide; Merck-Serono and Orgalutran) were introduced almost two decades ago with the promise of replacing GnRHagonists in the blocking effect of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge and early luteinization, during ovarian stimulation. The GnRH-antagonist with its direct, competitive blocking action on the receptors to GnRH in the pituitary, and the induction of rapid reversible suppression of LH secretion was supposedly better than the old time agonist, which is plagued by several side effects, including unwanted initial flare-up with a rise in estradiol and progesterone levels and ovarian (follicular or luteal) cyst formation. Conversely, during the last decade, researchers have noted many advantages in the use of the antagonist, which includes (Table I):