Differences in time to natural conception between women with unexplained infertility and infertile women with minor endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opinion remains divided as to whether finding endometriotic lesions in the absence of adhesions has an adverse effect on the likelihood of conception. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 192 fully investigated infertile couples, followed up for up to 3 years following laparoscopy. Women studied were ovulating, <40 old years and their partners had normal sperm parameters. All 117 women with unexplained infertility and 75 with minimal/mild endometriosis without adhesive disease were managed conservatively. RESULTS: Women with endometriosis were found to have a lower probability of pregnancy compared with women with unexplained infertility (36% versus 55%; P<0.05). Other factors adversely associated with pregnancy were primary infertility, smoking and longer duration (>3 years) of infertility. However, the effects of duration of infertility and primary infertility were not observed to be statistically significant for women with endometriosis. CONCLUSIONS: The findings, although undertaken in a select population undergoing laparoscopy, suggest the likelihood of pregnancy is reduced in infertile women with minimal/mild endometriosis compared with those infertile women with a normal pelvis. Duration of infertility and a previous history of pregnancy are important in predicting the likelihood of pregnancy in women with no obvious cause for their infertility (unexplained), whilst the relationship may be more complex in women with minor endometriosis
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".