Alcohol, drugs, caffeine, tobacco, and environmental contaminant exposure: Reproductive health consequences and clinical implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive function and fertility are thought to be compromised by behaviors such as cigarette smoking, substance abuse, and alcohol consumption; however, the strength of these associations are uncertain. Furthermore, the reproductive system is thought to be under attack from exposure to environmental contaminants, particularly those chemicals shown to affect endocrine homeostasis. The relationship between exposure to environmental contaminants and adverse effects on human reproductive health are frequently debated in the scientific literature and these controversies have spread into the lay press drawing increased public and regulatory attention. Therefore, the objective of the present review was to critically evaluate the literature concerning the relationship between lifestyle exposures and adverse effects on fertility as well as examining the evidence for a role of environmental contaminants in the purported decline of semen quality and the pathophysiology of subfertility, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and endometriosis. The authors conclude that whereas cigarette smoking is strongly associated with adverse reproductive outcomes, high-level exposures to other lifestyle factors are only weakly linked with negative fertility impacts. Finally, there is no compelling evidence that environmental contaminants, at concentrations representative of the levels measured in contemporary biomonitoring studies, have any effect, positive or negative, on reproductive health in the general population. Further research using prospective study designs with robust sample sizes are needed to evaluate testable hypotheses that address the relationship between exposure and adverse reproductive health effects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".