Infertility, infertility treatment and behavioural problems in the offspring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioural patterns in children of infertile couples may be influenced by both the underlying causes of infertility and stress in the couples. Treatment procedures, such as culture media and manipulation of gametes and embryos, may also result in developmental problems. We examined behavioural problems in children as a function of infertility and infertility treatment, using data from three population-based birth cohorts in Denmark (Aalborg-Odense Birth Cohort, Aarhus Birth Cohort and Danish National Birth Cohort). Information on time to pregnancy and infertility treatment was collected during pregnancy. Children aged between 7 and 21 years were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). The SDQ was completed by mothers in all cohorts and, in addition, by teachers in the Aarhus cohort and by children themselves in the Aalborg-Odense cohort. Children born after a time to pregnancy of >12 months and no infertility treatment had a behavioural pattern similar to children of fertile parents. Teachers reported a higher total difficulties score for children born after infertility treatment, but no significant differences were seen on any subscales of the teachers' report, and neither the mothers nor the children reported any differences on the total difficulties score and the prosocial behaviour score. Our results are thus overall reassuring regarding behavioural problems in children born to infertile couples, regardless of infertility treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".