The effect of intramural fibroids without uterine cavity involvement on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The influence of fibroids on fertility is poorly understood. Submucosal and intramural fibroids that distort the endometrial cavity have been associated with decreased pregnancy rates (PRs) following IVF treatment. However, there is uncertainty about the effect of intramural fibroids that do not distort the endometrial cavity on IVF outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the association between non-cavity-distorting intramural fibroids and IVF outcome. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scales were used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 19 observational studies comprising 6087 IVF cycles. Meta-analysis of these studies showed a significant decrease in the live birth (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.88, P < 0.0001) and clinical PRs (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94, P = 0.002) in women with non-cavity-distorting intramural fibroids compared with those without fibroids, following IVF treatment. CONCLUSION: The presence of non-cavity-distorting intramural fibroids is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing IVF 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 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 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".