## 3 Results
### Logistic Regression and ANOVA Analysis Studied among the Infertile Women
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Covariates**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**n6020**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**n20210**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**n1801133**} \\ \cline{2-13} \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & **GG = 95** & **GA = 04** & **AA = 01** & \(p\)**-Value** & **GG = 93** & **GA = 06** & **AA = 01** & \(p\)**-Value** & **CC = 74** & **CT = 21** & **TT = 05** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Age (years) & 31.00 \(\pm\) 5.40 & 27.25 \(\pm\) 2.06 & 25.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.218 & 30.85 \(\pm\) 5.37 & 30.00 \(\pm\) 6.03 & 30.00 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.922 & 31.09 \(\pm\) 5.27 & 30.19 \(\pm\) 5.56 & 28.80 \(\pm\) 6.42 & 0.507 \\ \hline Weight (bg) & 27.43 \(\pm\) 10.87 & 63.15 \(\pm\) 18.22 & 75.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.151 & 78.77 \(\pm\) 11.18 & 72.85 \(\pm\) 14.37 & 81.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.802 & 74.69 \(\pm\) 10.90 & 70.52 \(\pm\) 12.68 & 76.04 \(\pm\) 9.98 & 0.299 \\ \hline BM (bg/m2) & 29.47 \(\pm\) 4.23 & 26.83 \(\pm\) 8.27 & 34.20 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.253 & 29.44 \(\pm\) 4.24 & 28.95 \(\pm\) 4.98 & 30.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.916 & 29.73 \(\pm\) 4.26 & 28.15 \(\pm\) 4.99 & 29.88 \(\pm\) 4.44 & 0.346 \\ \hline FSH (U/ml) & 73.22 \(\pm\) 0.78 & 7.65 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 7.40 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.073 & 7.34 \(\pm\) 0.79 & 7.32 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 6.80 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.240 & 7.99 \(\pm\) 0.78 & 7.77 \(\pm\) 0.75 & 7.22 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 0.488 \\ \hline LH (U/ml) & 5.58 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 5.33 \(\pm\) 0.49 & 5.90 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.444 & 5.99 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 5.35 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 5.70 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.800 & 5.56 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 5.53 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 6.04 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 0.064 \\ \hline LH/ FSH ratio & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.573 & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.482 & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.78 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 0.194 \\ \hline TSH (U/ml) & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 2.63 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.870 & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 2.39 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 2.94 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.246 & 2.47 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 2.55 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 2.61 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 0.407 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: ANOVA analysis between the thrombophilic genotypes in infertile women. Combined Genotyping and Allele Frequencies among the Thrombinic Variants in the Case and Control Women  
In this study, we also created Table 8, which consists of the combined genotypes and allele frequencies for the G1691A, G20210A and C677T SNPs present in all the cases compared to all the controls to explore the potential cumulative influence of thrombophilic genotypes. The combination for the normal genotype was calculated as GG/GG/CC (87.33% vs. 89.67%), while the heterozygous genotype was shown to be GA/GA/CT (10.33% vs. 9.67%) and the homozygous variant was indicated as AA/AA/TT (2.23% vs. 0.67%). The normal and variant alleles were confirmed as G/G/C (92.5% vs. 94.5%) and A/A/T (7.5% vs. 5.5%). The overall genetic analysis for the heterozygous (OR-1.098 (95%CI: 0.64-1.87); \(p\) = 0.732) and homozygous variant genotypes (OR-3.594 (95%CI: 0.73-17.46); \(p\) = 0.090) was found to be inconsistent. The allele frequencies were also found to have non-significant associations (OR-1.393 (95%CI: 0.87-2.21); \(p\) = 0.160). Additionally, the dominant (12.67% vs. 10.33%; OR-1.259 (95%CI: 0.76-2.08); \(p\) = 0.374) and co-dominant (89.67% vs. 75%; OR-1.077 (95%CI: 0.63-1.83); \(p\) = 0.785) models showed negative associations, while, finally, the recessive model (97.67% vs. 91.33%; OR-3.972 (95%CI: 1.69-9.29); \(p\) = 0.0006) showed positive associations.