The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
the earlier and more frequent that women do this procedure of measuring AMH and measuring their follicle count, the higher the probability that they will eventually have a successful fertilization and pregnancy when they seek to do so.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I think you're right that it should be offered more broadly it speaks to the democratization of data again and I think most women don't know that so you're doing a huge service I think to be speaking into this one
And by the way, I always check egg count. Always, always, because I want to make sure we're not low because if you have low egg count and you're 17, you're going to go freeze eggs. I'm not going to wait for you to be older to freeze. Waiting for that patient to be 30 or 35, you're done. You know, they will have no eggs left.
And then if one is poss if one can they should really evaluate their egg count AMH with the understanding that high egg count and AMH and regular shedding of the uterine lining aka menses menrating does not necessarily mean that everything is reproductively normal.