Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Incidence of Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the available literature regarding the relationship between assisted reproductive technology and ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Computerized search of 6 databases from 1966 (or closest) to present: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cancerlit, CINHAL, Current Contents, PubMed in process (formerly called PreMEDLINE), and MEDLINE. We collected references from the bibliographies of reviews, original research articles, content experts, and conference proceedings to find published and unpublished literature. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Case-control and cohort studies are included. The population of interest is treated infertile women, the control population is untreated infertile women, and the intervention or exposure of interest includes the following fertility medications: clomiphene citrate, gonadotropins, human chorionic gonadotropin, and gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists. The primary outcome is incident, primary ovarian cancer. Three cohort and 7 case-control studies were included in the quantitative analyses. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scales were used. Two investigators independently extracted study methods, sources of bias, and outcomes. The following information was recorded: publication information, subject characteristics, intervention information and outcomes. Studies combined were sufficiently homogeneous for quantitative summary. Case-control and cohort data showed a significantly elevated risk for exposure of infertility medications and ovarian cancer in subjects who underwent assisted reproductive technology compared with general population controls (1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18 to 1.97). When cases of ovarian cancer were compared with infertile controls for exposure to infertility medications, the odds ratio (0.99; 95% CI 0.67, 1.45) was not elevated. However, cohort data comparing outcome in treated infertile patients with untreated infertile patients suggests that treated patients may tend to a lower incidence of ovarian cancer-odds ratio = 0.67 (95% CI 0.32, 1.41). CONCLUSION: Ovarian cancer does not appear to be increased in treated infertile patients versus untreated infertile patients. Treated infertile patients may have a lower incidence of ovarian cancer than untreated infertile patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".