Talk:Age and female fertility

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 21 September 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huberart, Jeremysiu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Risk?

In first paragraph: "After puberty, female fertility increases and then decreases, with advanced maternal age causing an increased risk of female infertility." - "Risk" implies "danger" or some harm to women - perhaps "probability" or "frequency" would be a better word? Samatva (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

lower age at which conception is possible

There doesn't appear to be anything about the lower age limits on conception, the article seems skewed towards issues around menopause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.160.214 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

i agree there is a blatant lie saying that women are most fertile in their early 20s. I know for a fact that women are at their most fertile within 1-2 years of their first period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.9.50 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not a "blatant lie". After menarche, several years must pass before peak fertility is reached. There's more about this subject in the main article (menarche), with links to studies. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:401D (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

But still, numbers of the lower age limits of conception are definitely underrepresented in this article. Fertility rates for the ages around 20 years old and below are not depicted in enough detail to support the statements, the actual peak was "in her early and mid-20s" or "between the late teens and late-20s" (as stated in the introduction of the article. That statement is far too vague anyway). Taking only the rough percentages existing in our fertility/menarche articles about how many of the cycles are anovulatory in the first years after menarche (and that numbers are all from the same source from the 1970s!), median peak fertility should be around 20. Kind regards,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The first source is actually just an article which itself has absolutely zero sources.

I'll state the maybe not obvious and say that there probably doesn't exist any data on the fertility before ~16 yrs. D3in3n83nutz3rn4m3n (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. A brief sentence on fertility in adolescence is now in the article which addresses the tag, and we simply don't have curves that go that far back, so the graph simply can't be expanded. Mvolz (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguity

At age 45, a woman starting to try to conceive will have no live birth in 50–80 percent of cases. "starting to try" could be read as the woman trying to have her first pregnancy. The source is only slides, no full text study, but it seems to be about all pregnancies at a certain age, not just first pregnancies.--92.213.30.212 (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

"Introduction: “Since studies are still cited from the ninetieth century and earlier” – maybe instead of this being about who is citing what, it could be about the research that’s being done like “since no major studies have been conducted since the nineteenth century” (if that’s the case) I think in general this section could benefit from being a little more broad; I see that you’re trying to give an overview but right now it reads more like a collection of facts. I would just leave the specifics for later in the article

Quantification of effect: I think this section looks great! Love the chart

Ovarian reserve: I think this section would benefit from adding in a sentence defining ovarian reserve Possibly the historical data section could be renamed “Trends in ovarian reserve” and you could see if there are trends in fertility over time? Or maybe that would just be a larger “trends” section

Impact: This section looks great too! I think the Michael Fox quotation doesn’t have to be a quotation, I would just paraphrase instead and say something like “clinically reproductive endocrinologists state that they pursue IVF more aggressively in patients over 35”

Overall, this looks great. I would focus the edits on the introduction; right now I think that’s the weakest part. Well done!" --Kea

Peer Review 2: "Intro: Nice concise intro! May want to update some stats since I’m sure that there are much more recent review papers/studies than 2004 on the same topic.

Quantification of effect: I think that the guidelines recommended that we focus more on summary of study results instead of actually reporting direct statistics. You might want to include some more “overall conclusions” instead of stats?

Ovarian reserve: I think this is a great overview and I’m glad that you include recommendations from ACOG!

Impact: May want to add a citation for the recommendation in the “reproductive medicine” section? Really great, clear summaries in this section!" - Madeline

Redundant and imprecise language in the first two sentences.

"Female fertility ... is a major fertility factor for women." This is obviously redundant.

"A woman's fertility is in generally good quality from the late teens to early thirties, although it declines gradually over time." This makes it sound like female fertility isn't 'generally good' before the 'late teens'(18-19?).

I myself am not comfortable/confident enough to make edits, but I hope someone else finds a the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3in3n83nutz3rn4m3n (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)