Sidestream smoking is equally as damaging as mainstream smoking on IVF outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking (CS) is a widely recognized health hazard, yet it remains prevalent in society and the effects of environmental tobacco smoke exposure on fertility are unknown. Our objective was to measure the effects of CS on the fertility of mainstream (MS) or sidestream (SS) smoke-exposed women compared to their non-smoking (NS) counterparts. METHODS: This retrospective study investigated 225 female patients undergoing IVF (n = 97) or ICSI (n = 128). Patients were grouped based on their smoking status for comparison. This included: 39 MS (18 IVF and 21 ICSI); 40 SS (16 IVF and 24 ICSI); and 146 NS (63 IVF and 83 ICSI) women. Fertility treatment outcomes including embryo quality, implantation and pregnancy rate were measured. RESULTS: No difference in embryo quality between the three groups was observed. However, there was a significant difference in implantation rate (MS = 12.0%, SS = 12.6%, and NS = 25.0%) and pregnancy rate (MS = 19.4%, SS = 20.0%, and NS = 48.3%) per embryo transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar embryo quality there was a striking difference in implantation and pregnancy rates of MS and SS smokers when compared with NS. Our data demonstrate that the effects of SS smoking are equally as damaging as MS smoke on fertility.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".