Infertility evaluation and management. Strategies for family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review family physicians' role in investigation and management of infertile couples. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE and PubMed were searched using the MeSH headings infertility, advanced maternal age, polycystic ovarian syndrome, clomiphene citrate, and insulin sensitizers. Bibliographies of review articles and textbooks were also searched. Review articles, randomized trials, observational studies, and case series are cited. MAIN MESSAGE: Approximately 8% of Canadian couples have difficulty conceiving. Mother's age significantly affects ability to conceive. Infertility assessment focuses on ovulatory dysfunction, tubal factors, sexual factors, and male factors. Women older than 35 years more than 12 months infertile; women younger than 35 more than 18 months infertile; women likely to have such problems as anovulation, tubal disease, or endometriosis; women whose partners' semen tests abnormal; and women who request referral should be referred. Patients treated with clomiphene citrate should be aware of its potential side effects. CONCLUSION: Family physicians have an important role in preconception counseling. Detailed and focused assessment facilitates initial investigations and treatment and can identify couples who could benefit from referral for further assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".