Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2026 Jul 30;14:1355. Originally published 2025 Dec 3. [Version 5] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.172281.5

Serological Evaluation of Anti- FSH Antibody and Anti- LH antibody In Iraqi Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome

Hiba M Khaleel 1, Sura F Alsaffar 2,a
PMCID: PMC13638218  PMID: 42839955

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 4

In the abstract we revised the aim of the study. The methodology has been revised. The conclusion, statistical analysis section, and results have been revised. The tables also have been revised.

Abstract

Background

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a hormonal, metabolic disorder in women of reproductive age. It can be induced by genetic, immunological, and environmental determinants. The main pathophysiology of PCOS, is hyperandrogenism, which can lead to acne, hirsutism, menstrual irregularities, as well as infertility. However, PCOS is also associated with chronic low-grade inflammation. There was little study on the autoimmunity, like anti-FSH and anti-LH antibodies, of PCOS, so the current study was designed to test the effectiveness of these antibodies on the occurrence of PCOS.

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the serum levels of anti-gonadotropin antibodies (anti-FSH, and anti-LH antibodies) between women with PCOS and healthy controls; and to evaluate their association with BMI status.

Methods

A total of 65 patients with PCOS, and 56 healthy women (controls) were recruited. Their ages were 18-45 years. Body mass index (BMI) was computed as, (weight) divided by (height squared, (kg/m 2). Blood samples were obtained from both patients and controls during the early follicular phase (day 2-3 of the menstrual cycle) using convenience sampling from the Medical City Hospital in Baghdad and private infertility clinics. PCOS was diagnosed according to the Rotterdam criteria (2003). This study was conducted between November 2024 and January 2025. The levels of anti-FSH and anti-LH antibodies were measured by ELISA.

Results

The results revealed a non-significant increase in anti-FSH antibody in patients (36.22±6.73) ng/ml, compared to controls (34.99±9.78 ng/ml), and a highly significant decrease in anti-LH antibody in patients (45.29±3.04 ng/ml), as compared to controls (69.16±10.90 ng/ml), (p<0.05). The fertility hormone, FSH showed a non-significant increase in unhealthy women (8.12±0.74 mIU/ml), in contrast to healthy women (7.35±0.62 mIU/ml) (p>0.05). While the LH hormone results was, in patients with PCOS (7.61±0.73 mIU/ml), as opposed to the control group, which was (5.62±0.56 mIU/ml), the (p>0.05). Finally, the LH/FSH ratio showed a non-significant increase in both patients (1.161±0.37) and controls (0.7819±0.22) (p>0.05). There was a non-significant correlation between BMI and anti-LH or anti-FSH antibodies (p >0.05).

Conclusion

Women with PCOS exhibit a significant decrease in anti-LH antibody levels along with variations in LH levels and LH/FSH ratio compared to healthy controls.

Keywords: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Anti-FSH antibody; Anti-LH antibody; LH/FSH ratio.

1. Introduction

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent gynecological disorder that affects women of reproductive age (15-45 years) and is characterized by a combination of hormonal and metabolic manifestations. 1, 2 The exact cause of this syndrome remains unclear; however, PCOS is primarily associated with hyperandrogenism and ovulatory dysfunction. Its incidence varies by region and is influenced by lifestyle factors, including diet and physical activity habits. The pathophysiology of PCOS, resulting from hyperandrogenism and insulin resistance, can lead to hirsutism, acne, and menstrual cycle irregularities, anovulation, endometrial cancer, ovarian enlargement, infertility, type 2 diabetes, other cardiovascular diseases. 3, 4 Environmental and genetic factors contribute to PCOS development in ovaries. Metabolic disorders, including insulin resistance, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and central obesity, are more common in obese women with PCOS. Furthermore, scientific evidence indicates that women with PCOS have higher levels of inflammation-related biomarkers in both their serum and ovarian tissues than women without the condition. 5, 6 PCOS causes an imbalance in progesterone and estrogen (sex hormones) levels, which leads to disturbances in the menstrual cycle. Therefore, oral contraceptives are often prescribed for women with PCOS. 7 This condition can be diagnosed by ovarian ultrasonography. The ovary can be affected by immune-mediated processes, and these responses can be organ-specific, affecting only the ovary, or systemic autoimmune diseases. One autoimmune conformation of the ovary, anti-FSH antibody interferes with the function of FSH, and FSH’s specific beta-epitope is predominant in endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. 8 The pituitary gland abides by slow and fast GnRH pulses. During the early follicular stage, increasing FSH concentrations stimulate estradiol (E2) production. Elevated E2 selectively suppresses FSH secretion and sustains a high-frequency pattern of GnRH pulses into the late follicular stage. 9 A hallmark of PCOS is an increase in GnRH levels, leading to elevated androgen levels. The ovary stimulates this oversecretion and produces high LH levels from the adenohypophysis. This elevation in LH secretion is observed in approximately 60% of women with PCOS, and oversecretion of LH prevents oocyte maturation. The main function of LH hormone is to stimulate ovulation and zygote implantation in the uterus, as well as to regulate the menstrual cycle. 10, 11 LH receptors on ovarian theca cells regulate steroid production, whereas FSH receptors on granulosa cells regulate follicle development and steroid hormone handling. Evidence from limited studies indicates a possible association between these antibodies and premature ovarian failure in women. 12 In infertile women anti-FSH antibodies were found at high concentrations. Because of their similarities in structure, function, and site of secretion, antibodies against both LH and FSH are the same. Pretreatment with oral contraceptives is used to balance the LH/FSH ratio before ovulation, to regulate ovarian induction. 13 There was very little previous studies on the role of anti-FSH and anti-LH antibodies in PCOS occurrence so the study was designed to compare the levels of these antibodies and its correlation with imbalanced FSH and LH levels and association with BMI in PCOS patients.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Patients sampling

A study was carried out in Baghdad, about 65 women with PCOS and 56 healthy women were included in the study. The women’s ages ranged between 18 and 45 years in patients and controls, about four participants were on treatment for PCOS like metformin, vitamin D, and oral contraceptives during sample collection, but they continued to meet the diagnostic criteria for PCOS. The doses of medications were not standardized among participants. The samples were collected using a clinical convenience sampling technique from the Medical City Hospital, Baghdad, and private women’s infertility clinics. Written consent was obtained from each patient and control before the study started. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the College of Science, University of Baghdad (Ref.: CSEC/1124/0100, November 2024 to Jan 2025). Due to the strict eligibility criteria and logistic challenges in recruiting completely healthy individuals, the sample size of the control group was smaller than the PCOS group. However, to minimize potential confounding factors, controls were closely matched with patients based on age. BMI was measured using the equation weight (kg)/(length).m 2. The cut off value was 25 as BMI < 25 is normal weight, BMI 25-30 is overweight and BMI >30 act as obese. The main symptoms that occur in patients with PCOS are irregular periods, acne, alopecia, hirsutism, oily skin, and depression. Hyperandrogenism is a key diagnostic criterion of PCOS. To verify the adequacy of the final sample size (65 cases and 56 controls), a post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G*Power software. Based on current sample size, the study achieved a statistical power (1-β) of over 80% (>0.80) at a significant level (α) of 0.05, confirming that the sample size is statistically sufficient to detect significant differences between the groups.

The sample size was calculated by Raosoft; the margin of error is 5%, the confidence level was 95% and response of distribution was 50%.

2.2 Diagnostic criteria

The diagnosis of PCOS was established based on the Revised Rotterdam Consensus criteria, requiring the presence of at least two of the following components: Oligo- or anovulation, clinical and/or biochemical hyperandrogenism, and PCOS morphology on ultrasound. In this study, the diagnostic criteria are classified as follows: Clinical criteria (based on patients’ symptoms, physical examination, and medical history), laboratory criteria (based on blood tests, hormonal levels, and immunological assays, including antibody detection), and imaging criteria (based on radiological and imaging techniques such as ultrasound). Specifically, the operational definition included assessing irregular periods or chronic amenorrhea for ovulatory dysfunction, and evaluating hirsutism, acne, or alopecia alongside serum androgen levels for hyperandrogenism.

Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) was assessed as part of the laboratory diagnostic criteria to support the evaluation of ovarian function. Additionally, while the LH/FSH ratio is not officially recognized as a primary diagnostic criterion within the Rotterdam guidelines, LH and FSH may serve as useful indicator for PCOS. An increase in the LH/FSH ratio to 2 or 3 in women with PCOS, the typical ratio being 1:1 of LH/FSH, means that the levels of both FSH and LH in the bloodstream can be compared. 14, 15 Therefore, both AMH levels and the LH/FSH ratio were utilized as supplementary pathophysiological markers rather than primary diagnostic tools. The phenotypes were not specific in this study, as the analysis focused on overall diagnosis rather than phenotype classification.

2.3 Exclusion criteria

Pregnant or breastfeeding women or those who had hypertension, diabetes, or other chronic diseases were excluded from the study. Also, individuals with thyroid dysfunction, hyperprolactinemia, and other endocrine conditions that could influence hormonal or immunological parameters were excluded from the study to minimize confounding factors. Only confirmed cases of PCOS were included in the study.

2.4 Gonadotropins hormones FSH, LH

Using the AFIAS-6 apparatus, hormones (Follicle stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone) were measured in the serum of women with PCOS and healthy women during the early follicular phase.

2.5 Anti-FSH, Anti-LH antibodies

All parameters were determined using the serum from women with PCOS and healthy women (controls) during the early follicular phase. Fertility hormones (anti-FSH antibody and anti-LH antibody) were measured by ELISA using immunological kits (Cat No: YLA0050HU, Shanghai YL Biotech Company, China) (Cat No: E3130Hu, BT LAB, China). The ELISA plate was precoated with human anti-FSH antibodies. Upon adding 50 μl of the sample to the wells, any anti-FSH Ab was bound to the immobilized antibodies. Biotin-labeled anti-FSH Ab was dispensed into all wells except for the standard wells, which were precoated. Biotin-labeled anti-FSH antibodies immobilized on the plate. Streptavidin-HRP was added to all wells, and the plate was kept in the dark. The mixture was incubated at 37°C for 60 min. After incubation, unbound streptavidin-HRP was washed away using washing buffer. The washing step was repeated five times, with a one-minute wait for each wash. Substrate solution (A and B) was then added, and the resulting color indicated the concentration of anti-FSH Ab. The enzymatic reaction was stopped by adding an acidic stop solution, and absorbance was measured at 450 nm using a microplate reader. The same detection steps used for anti-FSH Ab were applied to the anti-LH Ab. According to manufacturers' specifications, the intra-assay and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CV) for both anti-LH and anti-FSH ELISA kits were <8% and <10%, respectively, confirming the precision and reproducibility of the immunological assays.

2.6 Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 2019. The normality of continuous variables was formally evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test prior to statistical analyses. An independent t-test was used to compare means between patients and controls, statistical significance was set at p-value < 0.05. While the chi-square test was used to compare percentages between groups. Simple statistical analyses were sufficient as the data did not require more complex methods. The chi-square test was used to compare the categorical variables/proportions between groups in this study. A post hoc power analysis was performed using the observed differences in Anti-LH antibody levels between PCOS patients and controls. With 65 patients and 56 controls, the statistical power was >99% at a significance level of 0.05, indicating that the sample size was adequate to detect significant differences between groups.

3. Results

The baseline demographic characteristics of the studied population are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of PCOS patients was 26.80 ± 0.78 years, which was statistically comparable to that of the healthy control group (27.64 ± 1.91 years; p = 0.660), demonstrating successful age-matching. Regarding marital status, a significantly higher percentage of PCOS patients were married (75.38%, n = 49) compared to the controls (64.29%, n = 36), whereas single participants constituted (24.62%, n = 16) of patients (35.71% n = 13) and of controls (p = 0.0001).

Table 1. Baseline demographic data (Mean ± SE) and statistical comparisons of the studied population.

Factor Patients 65 (%) Control 56 (%) P-value
Age ranges (year) <30 43 (66.15%) 40 (71.43%)
≥30 22 (33.85%) 16 (28.57%)
Mean ± SE 26.80 ± 0.78 27.64 ± 1.91 0.660
Marital status Married 49 (75.38%) 36 (64.29%) 0.0001
Single 16 (24.62%) 20 (35.71%)
Have children Yes 29 (58.46%) 23 (64.29%) 0.830
No 20 (41.54%) 13 (35.71%)

Note: Data are represented as mean ± SE for continuous variables, and as counts and percentage (%) for categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Regarding fertility distribution, (58.46%, n = 29) of patients had children, while (41.54%, n = 20) did not. In the control group (64.29%, n = 23) had children and (35.71%, n = 13) did not. Chi-square analysis revealed that this slight difference in the prevalence of having children between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.830), indicating a homogenous distribution of baseline parity.

There was a non-significant increase in the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH) in PCOS (8.12 ± 0.74 mIU/ml), (7.61 ± 0.73 mIU/ml) respectively, as compared to control (7.35 ± 0.62 mIU/ml), (5.62 ± 0.56 mIU/ml) respectively (p value > 0.05). However, LH levels showed a non-significant increase in patients when compared to controls (p > 0.05). The present study found a highly significant decrease in antibodies against LH hormone in patient (45.29 ± 3.04 ng/ml) were found to be less than control (69.16 ± 10.90 ng/ml). Serum anti-LH antibodies were detected in PCOS patients, showing a negative correlation with LH levels. The anti-FSH antibody levels showed a non-significant increase in both patient and control groups. Antibodies against FSH in patient (36.22 ± 6.73 ng/ml) was more than the control (34.99 ± 9.78 ng/ml). The LH/FSH ratio revealed a non-significant increase in the patients (1.161 ± 0.37), and control groups (0.780 ± 0.22), as shown in Table 2. The LH/FSH ratio was more than 2 was in patients 5(7.6%), while in control zero. The ratio was less than 2, in patient 60 (92%) higher than in control where it was 56 (100%).

Table 2. Comparison of Serum Gonadotropin Levels (FSH, LH), Anti-Gonadotropin antibodies (anti-FSH, anti-LH) and LH/FSH Ratio Between Patients and Control Groups (Mean ± SE).

Group FSH (mUI/ml) LH (mUI/mL) LH/FSH Anti-FSH Ab (ng/ml) Anti-LH Ab (ng/ml)
Patients (n = 5) Mean ± SE 8.12 ± 0.74 7.61 ± 0.73 1.161 ± 037 36.22 ± 6.73 45.29 ± 3.04
Control (n = 6) Mean ± SE 7.35 ± 0.62 5.62 ± 0.56 0.780 ± 0.2 34.99 ± 9.78 69.16 ± 10.90
t-test 3.30 3.20 1.70 15.50 16.40
P-value 0.643 (NS) 0.227 (NS) 0.09 (NS) 0.936 (NS) 0.005

Note: Data are presented as mean ± standard error (SE).

t: Independent sample t-test statistic; p: Significance value. NS = Non-significant (p > 0.05).

The statistical sugnificance level was set at (p > 0.05)

mIU/ml = milli-International Unit per milliliter.

Ng = nanogram per milliliter.

The BMI of the patients and controls was as follows: in obese and overweight women the anti-LH antibody decreased in the patient (43.80)%, and control groups (69.90)%, while the anti- FSH antibody levels increased in the patients (42.60)% compared to the control group (39.70)%, and the LH/FSH ratio showed an increase in the patient (1.381), and control groups (0.80)%. In normal weight women, the anti-LH antibody was lower in the patients (47.586) ng/ml, than in controls (68.22)%, and the anti-FSH antibody also as anti-LH antibody, in patients (26.48)% increase, compared to control (28.80)%, while LH/FSH ratio represented a higher level in the patient (0.80)% than in the control (0.80)% as shown in Table 3. There was a non-significant correlation between the BMI and (Anti-FSH, Anti-LH antibodies, and LH/FSH ratio), as shown in Table 4.

Table 3. Classification of the Prevalence of Anti-Gonadotropin Antibodies and LH/FSH Ratio according to BMI in the Studied Group.

Parameters Group BMI > 25 (kg/m 2)
(Overweight/Obese)
BMI<25(kg/m 2)
Normal weight
ANTI-LH antibody Case 43.80% 47.60%
Control 69.90% 68.22%
ANTI-FSH antibody Case 42.60% 26.48%
Control 39.70% 28.80%
LH/FSH ratio Case 1.38% 0.80%
Control 0.90% 0.80%

Note: Data are presented as prevalence percentages (%) calculated independently within each stratified body mass index (BMI) subgroup relative to the total number of subjects in each respective group (case and controls). Due to the descriptive nature of this exploratory stratification and the small sample size within these specific individual subgroups, these values represent baseline clinical trends.

Table 4. Correlation coefficient (pearson r) between BMI and anti-FSH, anti-LH and LH/FSH ratio.

Parameters Patients r (n = 65) Controls r (n = 56) Significance (p-value)
Anti-FSH -0.09 -0.04 NS
Anti-LH 0.02 0.19 NS
LH/FSH ratio 0.02 -0.14 NS

Note: r: Pearson correlation coefficient. NS = non-significant (p > 0.05). The statistical significance level for all correlation analyses was maintained at p < 0.05.

4. Discussion

Polycystic ovarian syndrome can be defined as a hormonal, metabolic, and endocrine disorder, related to irregular androgen production from the ovaries. An increase in adrenal androgen levels, combined with obesity, promotes the peripheral conversion to estrogen. 16, 17 In addition to type 2 diabetes, women with PCOS often exhibit insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, and obesity. 18 It was normal to increase the level of LH hormone, and the ratio of LH/FSH; it may be between 1-2 in healthy women but increases to reach as high as 2 or 3, which will lead to anovulation. The gonadotrophin- axis was distributed in PCOS patients, so LH levels increased and FSH levels were within the normal range, leading to the expression of the normal LH/FSH ratio. This result is not concordant with that reported by Malini and Roy. 19 The results of this study showed an increase in the LH/FSH ratio in female with PCOS, which increased above 1, except in some patients who were, taking an oral contraceptive that balanced the LH/FSH level before the ovulation, which may have affected the results. Despite the potential influence of oral contraceptives on the LH/FSH ratio, a small proportion (7.5%) of the patients still exhibited values above 2, which is a hallmark feature of PCOS. This finding further supports the notion that, in addition to endocrine and metabolic disturbances, immune-mediated mechanisms, such as the presence of anti-LH Ab and anti-FSH Ab, may contribute to ovarian dysfunction and reproductive impairment in affected women. In addition, findings indicated an elevation in LH concentrations, along with either normal or reduced FSH concentrations, in individuals with PCOS, as revealed by previous research. 20 The medications that some patients with PCOS were taking were vitamin D3, oral contraceptives, and metformin when samples were collected, but they continued to meet the diagnostic criteria for PCOS. The role of metformin and vitamin D in PCOS was to decrease the FSH level in women during post-menopause and decrease LH levels in women with PCOS. 21 Some patients (approximately 4 participants) had been taking medications, such as metformin and vitamin D, which were prescribed by their physician at the time of sample collection. This treatment is commonly used in PCOS to improve hormonal balance by lowering LH levels and increasing FSH levels, thereby supporting ovulation and enhancing menstrual regularity. Additionally, metformin and vitamin D have a positive effect on BMI, and their combination is particularly effective in managing ovulatory dysfunction in patients with PCOS. 22 Pretreatment with oral contraceptives is used to balance the LH/FSH ratio before ovulation to regulate ovarian induction. 23 Insulin resistance in women with PCOS is reduced by metformin, thereby counteracting adverse metabolic and hormonal disturbances. This improvement is accompanied by enhanced GnRH pulsatility, decreased LH secretion, and reduced androgen production, and an increase in sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG). Normalization of LH levels and the LH/FSH ratio in this manner is considered one of the most prominent therapeutic effects of metformin on fertility in women with PCOS. 24 FSH and LH are inhibited by anti-FSH antibody or anti-LH antibody trapping the hormones in the immune complex, and anti-FSH antibody prevents FSH hormone from binding to its receptor. 25 An earlier study showed that there was a higher level of anti-FSH antibody in patients with PCOS than in controls. The exact mechanism remains unclear, and a previous study suggested that the epitope of the beta-chain of FSH attacked by anti-FSH antibodies. These autoantibodies made the tissue of ovaries and the hormone receptors as target, which activated the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor, and disrupted the action of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. The rate of anti-FSH antibody in this study, increased in female with PCOS, which is consistent with a previous study showing an elevation in anti-FSH antibody levels in women with PCOS. However, the anti-LH antibody level did not show that increase. As well as the current study showed a non-significant relationship between (BMI) and (anti-FSH antibody, anti-LH antibody, and the LH/FSH ratio). There was a non-significant decrease in anti-LH antibody levels, in obese patients and a non-significant increase in obese control women. The results were the same for the non-obese (patients and controls). In obese and non-obese (patients and controls), the anti-FSH antibody, LH/FSH ratio, revealed a non-significant increase, as shown in earlier research. 26 In earlier study, alterations in reproductive hormones were identified in PCOS patients, with FSH levels being lower and LH levels elevated. Approximately, 64.5% of the women exhibited abnormal hormonal profiles involving FSH, LH, along with an increased LH/FSH ratio. The ratio of LH/FSH showed an inverse association with body mass index. Also, these hormonal changes, particularly the imbalance in LH, FSH, and their ratio, were related to clinical manifestations of PCOS, such as obesity, insulin resistance, and hyperandrogenism. 27 A previous study reported elevated LH levels in PCOS patients accompanied by detectable anti-LH antibodies. These findings suggest that serum anti-LH Abs could serve as a potential marker for PCOS. In line with this, the current study observed an inverse relationship between LH and anti-LH Abs, as the results showed elevated LH levels accompanied by decreased levels of anti-LH antibodies supporting the proposed relationship. 28 As such, this study suggested a group of patients with PCOS and controls (healthy women), according to their ages, and if they have children (fertile), or not (infertile), to detect the fertility beside that (secondary infertility), and (primary infertility) in women with PCOS was clearly increased. However, the levels of anti-LH and anti-FSH antibody in primary infertile patients with PCOS were higher than those in secondary infertile patients with PCOS and controls. To review past research, infertility was defined as primary infertility (when couples never had children for more than 12 months). Secondary infertility (when couples never had children after the last child they had, for more than 12 months), and the female was diagnosed with PCOS without taking any treatment. BMI is a numerical value that estimates a person’s body fat based on their weight and height; BMI in obese and overweight women is above 25, whereas that in low fat women is below 25. In an earlier study the women with a BMI less than 25 (normal weight) had fewer menstrual cycle irregularities than obese and overweight women. 29

Non-significant differences appeared among anti-LH antibodies, anti-FSH antibodies, and the LH/FSH ratio with BMI in this study.

Some patients (approximately 4 participants) were on medications (e.g., metformin and contraceptives) during sample collection; nevertheless, they continued to meet the diagnostic criteria for PCOS as confirmed by a specialist. Based on the present findings, several recommendations for future research can be proposed: assess additional immunological markers and apply a more detailed BMI classification.

5. Conclusion

This study suggests that immune-mediated mechanisms, including alterations in anti-FSH antibody profiles, may play a role alongside endocrine and metabolic factors in the pathophysiology of PCOS. Although an elevated LH/FSH ratio > 2 was clinically observed in a small subset of patients, the distribution of fertility status and baseline parity did not demonstrate statistically significant variations between the studied groups. Incorporating immunological markers alongside standard hormonal screening could improve descriptive patients’ assessment. Future studies with larger sample sizes and broader longitudinal cohorts are required to establish clear causal pathways and guide targeted interventions.

Ethical statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the College of Science, University of Baghdad (Ref.: CSEC/1124/0100, November 2024). All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written consent was obtained from each patient and control before the study started.

Acknowledgment

A great thanks to the Iraqi Ministry of Health and to Dr. Zahraa Ali Mohammed Infertility consultant doctor. I extend my sincere thanks to all staff of the Medical City of Baghdad and to all women who helped me during the collection of blood samples.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 5; peer review: 1 approved

Data availability statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are available in the Zendo repository.

1. The raw data of the paper was uploaded to zendo repository in the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17499229 30

2. Zendo: questionnaire and written consent form were uploaded as mentioned in the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17499229 30

Data is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

  • 1. Jiang B: The Global Burden of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in Women of Reproductive Age: Findings from the GBD 2019 Study. Int. J. Women’s Health. 2025 Dec 31;17:153–165. 10.2147/IJWH.S490836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Abdullah MR, Alabassi HM: The potential influence of immune modulatory molecules (TGF-βIII and CTLA-4) in pathogenicity of PCOS. KIJOMS. 2024;10(3):2. 10.33640/2405-609X.3361 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Alsaffar SF, Jumaa HM, Baqer NN: Detection of Leptin and Ghrelin Hormones and the Expression of their Receptors in Iraqi Obese Individuals. Iraqi J. Sci. 2024 Jan 30;36–42. 10.24996/ijs.2024.65.1.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Mahdi QA, Wadood SA, Hamza RH: Association between systemic and local oxidative stress of infertile women undergoing Ivf/Icsi. Iraqi J. Sci. 2019 Sep 29;1888–1897. 10.24996/ijs.2019.60.9.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Pratama G, Wiweko B, Asmarinah, et al. : Mechanism of elevated LH/FSH ratio in lean PCOS revisited: a path analysis. Sci. Rep. 2024 Apr 8;14(1):8229. 10.1038/s41598-024-58064-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Mohammed NA, Sulaiman GM, Alabassi HM, et al. : The significant role of IL-15, IL-22, IL-37, and caspase 9 in polycystic ovary syndrome: A case-control study in a sample of Iraqi women. JGEB. 2025 Mar 1;23(1):100462. 10.1016/j.jgeb.2025.100462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Akpang N, Kwiatkowski J, Zaborowska L, et al. : Autoantibodies Targeting the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Ovarian Axis in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Emerging Key Players in Pathogenesis. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2025 Apr 26;26(9):4121. 10.3390/ijms26094121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Bosch E, Alviggi C, Lispi M, et al. : Reduced FSH and LH action: implications for medically assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod. 2021 Jun 1;36(6):1469–1480. 10.1093/humrep/deab065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Abbara A, Dhillo WS: Targeting elevated GnRH pulsatility to treat polycystic ovary syndrome. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021 Oct 1;106(10):e4275–e4277. 10.1210/clinem/dgab422 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Schniewind HA, Sattler LM, Haudum CW, et al. : Autoimmunity to the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (Fshr) and luteinizing hormone receptor (lhr) in polycystic ovarian syndrome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 Dec 20;22(24):13667. 10.3390/ijms222413667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Malik MA, Alsaffar SF: Assessment of Intestinal Hormones Cholecystokinin and Peptide YY in Iraqi Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. JFacMed Baghdad. 2025 Apr 1;67(1):50–55. 10.32007/jfacmedbaghdad2441 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Mitrašinović-Brulić M, Buljan M, Suljević D: Association of LH/FSH ratio with menstrual cycle regularity and clinical features of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. MEFS J. 2021 Oct 28;26(1):40. 10.1186/s43043-021-000850 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Berwary NJ, Aziz RM: HLA-B* 0702 class-I allele, anti-FSH, anti-LH, and vitamin D3: Potential links with polycystic ovary syndrome in women of Erbil city, Iraq. 22 November 2022;6(1):210–221 ref. 57. 10.5455/jabet.2023.d119 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Ganie MA, Rather GA. Effect of quercetin on steroidogenesis and folliculogenesis in ovary of mice with experimentally-induced polycystic ovarian syndrome. Front. Endocrinol. 2023;14:1153289. 2023. 10.3389/fendo.2023.1153289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kyrou I, Karteris E, Robbins T, et al. : Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and COVID-19: an overlooked female patient population at potentially higher risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med. 2020 Dec;18:220. 10.1186/s12916-020-01697-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Poojari P, Padgaonkar A, Paramanya A, et al. : Compendium of polycystic ovarian syndrome and its relevance in glycation and diabetes. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2022 Jan;39(1):256–268. 10.52142/omujecm.39.1.49 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Saadia Z: Follicle stimulating hormone (LH: FSH) ratio in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)-obese vs. non-obese women. Medical Archives. 2020 Aug;74(4):289. 10.5455/medarh.2020.74.289-2931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Malini NA, Roy GK: Influence of insulin on LH, testosterone and SHBG in various PCOS categories based on the mode of secretion of LH in relation to FSH levels. Acta Endocrinologica (Bucharest). 2021;17(3):313–318. 10.4183/aeb.2021.313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Jiang S, Tang T, Sheng Y, et al. : The effects of letrozole and metformin combined with targeted nursing care on ovarian function, LH, and FSH in infertile patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. J. Healthc. Eng. 2022;2022(1):3712166. 10.1155/2022/3712166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Singh S, Pal N, Shubham S, et al. : Polycystic ovary syndrome: etiology, current management, and future therapeutics. J. Clin. Med. 2023 Feb 11;12(4):1454. 10.3390/jcm12041454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Mohan A, Haider R, Fakhor H, et al. : Vitamin D and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): a review. Ann. Med. Surg. 2023 Jul 1;85(7):3506–3511. 10.1097/MS9.0000000000000879 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Nath CK, Barman B, Das A, et al. : Prolactin and thyroid stimulating hormone affecting the pattern of LH/FSH secretion in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: A hospital-based study from North East India. JFMPC. 2019 Jan 1;8(1):256–260. 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_281_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Alsaffar SF, Ibrahim SK: Assessment of chemokines MIP-1α and MIP-1 βin Iraqi women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Egypt. J. Immunol. 2023 Oct;30(4):40–46. 10.55133/eji.300405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Brand KM, Gottwald-Hostalek U, Andag-Silva A: Update on the therapeutic role of metformin in the management of polycystic ovary syndrome: Effects on pathophysiologic process and fertility outcomes. Womens Health. 2025 Jan;21:17. 10.1177/17455057241311759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Li H, Guo Y, Zhang G, et al. : Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone receptor autoantibodies induce polycystic ovary syndrome-like features in a rat model. Exp. Physiol. 2021 Apr;106(4):90212. 10.1113/EP08910917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Jabbar Ahmed N, Salih BA, Othman BS: Relation of Anti FSH Antibodies and Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome in Women. IJPHRD. 2020 Jan 31;11(1):1954–1959. 10.37506/v11/i1/2020/ijphrd/194141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Yang J, Chen C: Hormonal changes in PCOS. J. Endocrinol. 2024 Apr 1;261:1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Abood RM, Hathal HD: Study of Anti-Ovarian Antibody, Anti-FSH and Anti-LH Antibodies Along with Their Receptors in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Indian J Med Forensic. Med. Toxicol. 2021 Mar 24;15(2):3250–3257. 10.37506/ijfmt.v15i2.14869 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Faraj RM, Jawad AH, Badr AH: Effect of body mass index on abnormal ovarian secretion hormones among Iraqi women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). ANJS. 2019 Mar 1;22(1):40–45. 10.22401/ANJS.22.1.06 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Alsaffar SF, Khaleel HM: Serological Evaluation of Anti-FSH antibody, and Anti-LH antibody In Iraqi women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Zendo. 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.17499229 [DOI]
F1000Res. 2026 Oct 1. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.206706.r514936

Reviewer response for version 5

Amal Umran Mosa 1

The manuscript addresses an interesting aspect of PCOS . a few specific issues should be corrected:

1. Table 2 should be rechecked, because it reports Patients (n = 5) and Control (n = 6)  although the study includes 65 patients and 56 controls. The table also states significance as (p > 0.05,) while the Methods section uses p < 0.05.

2. The reported negative correlation between LH and anti-LH antibodies should be supported statistically  because the corresponding correlation coefficient and p-value are not presented.

3. Medication use should be acknowledged as a limitation  a small number of participants were receiving metformin, vitamin D  or oral contraceptives during sample collection.

4. The conclusion should be slightly moderated because anti-FSH differences were not statistically significant whereas anti-LH showed the clearer significant finding.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Endocrinology and PCOS

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 Sep 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.206706.r514927

Reviewer response for version 5

Erna Yovi Kurniawati 1

Overall, the manuscript is well structured, with clear objectives, adequate methods and analysis, and findings that are relevant to the study aims. The results are clearly presented and appropriately supported by the analysis. As a minor enhancement, the authors are encouraged to further emphasize the  clinical implications of the findings, particularly how the results may be translated into clinical practice, healthcare services, or clinical decision-making. Clarifying the potential practical application and contribution to improving the quality of care would further strengthen the manuscript's scientific and clinical relevance.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

health reproductive, PCOS, Infertility, Endocrine Metabolic

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2026 Jul 10. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.202995.r498042

Reviewer response for version 4

Mohd Ashraf Ganie 1, Nusrat Jahan 2

  1. The diagnosis relied on clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound findings; however, standardized cut-off values for clinical hyperandrogenism (modified Ferriman–Gallwey score) and biochemical hyperandrogenism (serum testosterone) were not specified, which may limit the reproducibility and consistency of the diagnostic criteria.

  2. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was mentioned as part of the diagnostic evaluation, but its values and diagnostic contribution were not reported or analyzed.

  3. Some participants were receiving metformin, oral contraceptives, or vitamin D during sample collection, which may have influenced hormonal and immunological measurements despite meeting the diagnostic criteria for PCOS.

  4. Other conditions that can mimic PCOS, such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Cushing syndrome, were not explicitly reported as being excluded, which may have introduced diagnostic heterogeneity.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Endocrine disorders especially PCOS

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 Jul 12.
Sura Alsaffar 1

Dear reviewer, 

​​​​​​ Thanks for your time and your efforts in reviewing our paper, I'm pleased to answer your comments as the following:

 In regard to comments 1,2: The diagnosis depends on clinical investigation relied upon Rotterdam criteria, laboratory testing included (FSH, LH, Estrogen, Prolactin, Testosterone and AMH hormones) these hormones used for diagnosis as routine work but not mentioned in this paper.

Modified Ferriman gallwey score wasn’t used by consultants.

in regarding to comment 3

Just 4 PCOS patients took the mentioned therapy, and the number of those patients wasn’t enough to put them in separate group, and I mentioned for scientific honesty 

comment No 4 

yes, true I didn’t mention in exclusion criteria, the diagnosis depends on hormones, symptoms and relied on ultrasound 

I can add it for exclusion criteria for future studies as you recommended 

The author 

Dr Sura F Alsaffar 

University of Baghdad, College of Science Department of Biology

F1000Res. 2026 Jul 18.
Hiba Khaleel 1

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback. All requested revisions have been successfully addressed and incorporated into the manuscript as detailed below:

Response 1:

We have explicitly specified the utilized BMI cut-off values (BMI < 25 for normal weight, 25-30 for overweight, and > 30 for obesity).

Response 2:

AMH was not the primary focus of this study.

Response 3:

We have clarified that only 4 participants were taking these medications, which did not affect the overall study outcomes.

Response 4:

We have clarified that only PCOS patients were included in this study.

F1000Res. 2026 Jul 8. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.202995.r498044

Reviewer response for version 4

Shahed Morshed 1

The authors did not address the concerns.

Abstract:

1. This is a case-control study. However, the authors tried to identify a causal association in the objective

2. The objective was simply a comparison of the antibody levels between PCOS and control. The authors mentioned the role of antibodies in the occurrence of PCOS.

3. The results section unnecessarily described the findings with LH & FSH. The correlation and association with BMI and LH-Ab and FSH-Ab were not described.

4. The conclusion section should be mentioned according to the objectives. The authors unnecessarily described LH & FSH.

Introduction:

1. Objective: Wrong hypothesis as previously described

Methods:

1. Why is the sample size of the control less than the case? How did you match them?

2. Wrong sampling technique

3. How did you adjust the current treatment in your analysis?

4. The sample size equation was not provided; it seems the wrong formula was used, and the minimum sample size was not mentioned.

5. Diagnostic criteria: Mentioned in the abstract but not here. The operational definitions of each component were not described. LH/FSH ratio is not currently a diagnostic criterion in the Rotterdam criteria.

6. Mention BMI cut-off to define overweight/obesity

7. Gonadotropins instead of infertility hormones are more appropriate

8. What is your CV of anti-LH and anti-FSH?

9. Please correct: the chi-square test was used to compare the frequency between... 

10. The power analysis should be done using your current sample size

11. Mention the correlation analysis 

12. How did you assume the normality of your numerical variables?

Results:

1. The interpretation of the tables should be described, not the direct findings

2. Table-1: The case and control groups are not matched by baseline characteristics, and the authors did not run an adjusted analysis.

3.  Table 2:

i. Repeated description of LH and LH-Ab.

ii. anti-FSH: Non-significant increase in both groups; not clear how both groups?

iii. No correlation was shown in Table -2, but described as "a negative correlation with LH levels"

4. Table -3: Unnecessary

5. Table 4: No statistical analysis was done. The sample size for subgroup analysis might be suboptimal.

Discussion:

1. The objective-oriented findings were not mentioned

2. The discussion should be focused on the objectives, not LH and FSH

Conclusion:

1. Not objective-based, not even according to the study findings.

Due to several methodological inconsistencies, the article is not suitable for indexing.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

PCOS, Diabetes, Obesity

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 Jul 18.
Hiba Khaleel 1

Dear Reviewer,

Response 1: Done. The wording in the abstract has been revised to focus purely on association rather than implying any causal relationship, fitting the case-control design.

Response 2: Done. The objective in the abstract has been corrected to focus strictly on comparing antibody levels between the PCOS and control groups.

Response 3: Done. General descriptions of LH and FSH have been removed from the abstracts' results. It now briefly details the correlation of BMI with LH-Ab and FSH-Ab.

Response 4: Done. The conclusion of the abstract has been rewritten to align strictly with the study objectives. removing unnecessary general text about LH and FSH.

Response 5: Done. The 2003 Rotterdam criteria have been explicitly defined in the methodology, and the LH/FSH ratio is now clarified as an exploratory.

Response 6: Done. The WHO BMI cutoff classifications (< 25 and > 25 kg/m) have been added to the text.

Response 7: Done. The term "infertility hormones" has been entirely replaced with "gonadotropins."

Response 8: Done. The intra-assay and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CV) for both ELISA kits have been included in the methodology.

Response 9: Done. The description of the chi-square test has been corrected in the statistical analysis section.

Response 10, 12: Done. The Shapiro-Walk normality test and the post-hoc power analysis (>99%) details have been added to the statistical analysis section.

Response 11: Done. Pearson correlation analysis has been explicitly mentioned and defined in the text.

Results: Table 1, 2

The descriptions have been revised to correct numerical overlaps, remove incorrect correlation terms, and properly reflect the adjusted age matching (p=0.660) and non-significant fertility values (p=0.830).

Response to conclusion: The conclusion has been rewritten.

F1000Res. 2026 May 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.198200.r481530

Reviewer response for version 3

Shahed Morshed 1

The research methodology is not replicable.

1. The sampling technique seems a convenient sampling. The authors repeatedly mention random sampling. Needs explanation about the sampling frame and the type of random sampling.

2. The authors did not provide a sample size calculation or the power of the study with the current sample size.

3. The authors did not provide the diagnostic criteria used to define PCOS .

4. Those taking medications may alter the antibody levels; they did not mention the number of patients. Any adjustment by regression was not attempted .

5. Statistical analysis: t-test and chi-square tests are not used to compare percentages.

6. Table 3 and 4: Statistical tests name- Absent

7. The method of reporting p-values is not uniform.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

PCOS, Diabetes, Obesity

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 May 28.
Hiba Khaleel 1

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comment.

1. The sampling technique has been corrected and clarified as convenience sampling throughout the manuscript.

2. A post hoc power analysis was performed and confirmed that the sample size was adequate to detect significant differences between the study groups.

3. The diagnostic criteria for PCOS based on Rotterdam criteria (2003) have been added to the methodology section.

4. The use of medications has now been clarified in the manuscript. only 4 patients, the results not affected.

5. The statistical analysis section has been revised to clearly specify the appropriate statistical tests used for each comparison.

6. The names of the statistical tests used in tables 3 and 4 have now been added.

7. The reporting format of P-values has been standardized throughout the manuscript.

F1000Res. 2026 Mar 25. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.196070.r467849

Reviewer response for version 2

Shahed Morshed 1

Major correction:

1. Sampling technique: 'Random' is not clear. Please explain in details

2. Please provide the sample size calculation

3. The diagnostic criteria and the definition of each component are not described. LH/FSH ratio is not currently used in the diagnosis of PCOS. Diagnosis of PCOS also required exclusion of similar endocrinopathies, not described.

4. The study was conducted in an uncontrolled condition where some got different types of drugs. The number, dose, and amount are not described. How did these drugs affect the findings? They were not adjusted in the analysis.

5. Please provide details about the statistical analysis. An independent-samples test is conducted to compare means, not percentages.

6. Table 1: Describe the interpretations rather than simply describing the tables.

7. In the footnotes of all tables: Provide the name of statistical tests.

8. Table 4: No statistical analysis was shown

9. Table 5: Two columns with r- could not understand

10. Discussion: 'In line with this, the current study observed a negative correlation between LH and

anti-LH Abs, supporting the proposed relationship': No correlation between LH and anti-LH Ab is provided

Minor

Abstract: 

1. Replace 'about' with 'A total of'

2. Correct age range

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

PCOS, Diabetes, Obesity

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2026 Mar 28.
Hiba Khaleel 1

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with your feedback.

Comment 1 response: We have clarified the sampling method in the method section.

Comment 2 response: The sample size calculation has now been added to the methods section, including the formula and parameters used.

Comment 3 response: The diagnostic criteria have been revised according to standard guidelines, and relevant details have been added. We also clarified the exclusion of other endocrine disorders.

Comment 4 response: We have clarified that some participants were receiving medication (e.g., metformin and oral contraceptives) recently during sample collection, but they still meet PCOS criteria as diagnosed by a specialist.

Comment 5 response: The statistical methods have been revised and clearly stated. Appropriate tests were used based on data type, and all tables now include the names of statistical tests and p-values.

Comment 6 response: Interpretation of the findings has been added to the results section.

Comment 7 response: All tables have been updated to include the appropriate statistical test in the footnotes.

Comment 8 response: Statistical analysis, including p-values, has been added to table 4.

Comment 9 response: Table 5 has been revised to clearly indicate the type of correlation (Pearson), and column descriptions have been added.

Comment 10 response: The discussion section has been revised.

Minor comments (Abstract): The abstract has been revised to include a total and an age range.

We appreciate your insightful comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.

sincerely,

Hiba Muhammed Khaleel.

University of Baghdad/College of Science.

F1000Res. 2026 Mar 12. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.196070.r465133

Reviewer response for version 2

Mohd Ashraf Ganie 1, Nusrat Jahan 2

Despite providing valuable insights into the Serological Evaluation of Anti- FSH Antibody and Anti- LH antibody In Iraqi women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, this study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings.

  1. The study included only 65 patients with PCOS and 56 controls, which may limit the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. A larger sample size would allow more robust analysis and improve the reliability of associations between anti-gonadotropin antibodies and PCOS.

  2. Participants were recruited from Medical City Hospital and a few private infertility clinics in Baghdad, which may introduce selection bias. Therefore, the results may not represent the broader population of women with PCOS from different geographic or ethnic backgrounds.

  3. Some participants were receiving treatments such as metformin, vitamin D, and oral contraceptives at the time of sample collection. These medications can influence LH, FSH, and the LH/FSH ratio, potentially affecting the interpretation of hormonal and immunological results.

  4. The study evaluated only anti-FSH and anti-LH antibodies. Other immune markers and inflammatory cytokines that may contribute to autoimmune mechanisms in PCOS were not assessed, limiting a comprehensive understanding of the immune involvement in the disorder.

  5. Because the study used a cross-sectional design, it cannot establish causal relationships between anti-gonadotropin antibodies and the development or progression of PCOS. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether these antibodies contribute directly to disease pathogenesis.

  6. Key metabolic parameters commonly associated with PCOS, such as insulin resistance, lipid profile, and glucose tolerance, were not evaluated. Including these parameters could provide a more comprehensive picture of endocrine-metabolic interactions.

  7. Although BMI was analyzed, the study only categorized participants into BMI >25 and <25, which may not fully capture variations in adiposity or metabolic risk. More detailed anthropometric or metabolic assessments could improve the analysis.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Endocrine Disorders

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Dec 31. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.189997.r441802

Reviewer response for version 1

Taieb Ach 1

The authors reported the use of antiFSH and antiLH in PCOS patients , and their influence on the clinical, hormonal and diagnosis aspects.

The research is original with novel results. 

This is a well written manuscript , with updated references.

Here are my comments to improve it before acceptance :

- Introduction is too long with a lot of references. The authors should state mainly the originality of the research.

- AMH sampling is missing the diagnosis criteria.

- The authors could update the number of follicles diagnosis in MENA region with a recent north african cutoff :( ref 1 )

- Add more details on PCOS phenotypes , and diagnosis criteria

- Patients sampling is missing

- Why in the results : androgen sampling is missing. 

- Is it necessary to have three numbers after decimals in each sampling ?

- Add abbreviations under tables : NS etc ..

- The results are original , however ; clinical implications are not welle explained.

Add more details on cost, clinical applications.

- Strength and limitations must be enhanced.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Reproductive Endocrinology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

References

  • 1. : Validation of the follicular and ovarian thresholds by an 18-MHz ultrasound imaging in polycystic ovary syndrome: a pilot cutoff for North African patients. Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health .2024;18: 10.1177/26334941241270372 10.1177/26334941241270372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2026 Feb 1.
Hiba Khaleel 1

Comment 1:

The response: The introduction has been shortened, and the originality regarding the role of anti-FSH antibody and anti-LH antibody in PCOS diagnosis and clinical implications has been preserved.

Comment 2: 

The response: The diagnostic criteria have been clarified under the Materials and Methods section. The role of AMH measurement in relation to these criteria has been clarified.

Comment 3:

The response: The study was conducted exclusively on Iraqi women.

Comment 4:

The response: PCOS phenotypes were not specified in this study; it is beyond the scope of the study.

Comment 5:

The response: The patients' sampling has been included.

Comment 6:

The response: Androgen levels were not assessed in this study, as the focus was on other diagnostic criteria.

Comment 7:

The response: Yes, using 3 decimal places ensures higher precision and consistency in reporting the sampling data.

Comment 8:

The response: All abbreviations used in the table, e.g., (NS: Not Significant), have been clearly defined in the table footnotes. 

Comment 9: 

The response: The discussion section has been expanded to better explain the clinical implications of the findings. Additional details regarding potential cost-effectiveness and practical clinical applications of using anti-FSH and anti-LH antibodies in PCOS diagnosis have been included.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    All data supporting the findings of this study are available in the Zendo repository.

    1. The raw data of the paper was uploaded to zendo repository in the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17499229 30

    2. Zendo: questionnaire and written consent form were uploaded as mentioned in the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17499229 30

    Data is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES