AMH does not tell you whether you can get pregnant
It predicts how many eggs a stimulation cycle will yield. That is a different question.
This is the most consequential misunderstanding in fertility testing, and it has been directly tested.
750 women aged 30 to 44 with no history of infertility, who had been trying for three months or less, were followed to pregnancy or twelve cycles. Their AMH, FSH and inhibin B were measured at the start. Adjusted for age, body mass index, race, smoking and recent contraceptive use:
| Group | Number | Conceived by 12 cycles |
|---|---|---|
| Low AMH, under 0.7 ng/mL | 84 | 84% (95% CI 70 to 91) |
| Normal AMH | 579 | 75% (95% CI 70 to 79) |
| High serum FSH, over 10 mIU/mL | 83 | 82% (95% CI 70 to 89) |
| Normal serum FSH | 654 | 75% (95% CI 70 to 78) |
The authors' own conclusion: biomarkers indicating diminished ovarian reserve compared with normal ovarian reserve were not associated with reduced fertility. These findings do not support the use of urinary or blood follicle-stimulating hormone tests or antimüllerian hormone levels to assess natural fertility for women with these characteristics.
ACOG's position, quoted exactly: Serum antimüllerian hormone level assessment generally should not be ordered or used to counsel women who are not infertile about their reproductive status and future fertility potential.
ACOG adds that AMH is unsuitable for predicting menopause, is not part of the diagnostic criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome, and is not recommended for predicting pregnancy loss.