spinoff - age-related IF or "unexplained" IF??

[Anonymous]

The other thread has got me thinking - how do you distinguish between age-related IF and "unexplained" IF? I feel like the other thread about getting pg in the late 30s is challenging some of my assumptions that egg quality is automatically much worse at that age.

So, if you're older (let's say late 30's - early 40's) and not getting pregnant, and everything checks out ok, would you consider that to be unexplained IF, or do you assume it's age-related? If you were 25, you'd fall in the "unexplained" category. So if you're 40, can you still be "unexplained" or is the assumption that it's gotta be your eggs?

I'm not sure how much of a practical difference the label really makes, but in some cases I would think it could be relevant to treatment (e.g., if it's age related maybe you'd want to try IVF w/ PGD to screen out bad embryos, consider moving to donor eggs, etc.)

How about if you are older but don't have any indicators of DOR that would normally point to reduced egg quality? Still assume age-related?

[Anonymous]

It isn't always to distinguish. Sometimes it is clear that you're dealing with DOR and possibly or likely something else, other times it really isn't clear. In fact, my diagnosis was "unexplained" (at age 39) even though initial signs indicated DOR. And even after we saw more evidence of DOR, I'm still not 100% convinced that is the only issue. ut on the other hand, I'm also not sure if the diagnosis makes a difference, although you have to be wary that something isn't being missed if DOR is assumed and other things aren't tested.