Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Nutrition Screening Form (NSF) was designed to identify lifestyle risk factors that negatively impact fertility and to provide a descriptive profile of 300 female infertility patients in a private urban infertility clinic. The NSF was mailed to all new patients prior to the initial physician's visit and self-reported data were assessed using specific criteria to determine if a nutrition referral was warranted. This observational study revealed that 43% of the women had a body mass index (BMI) <20 or ≥25 kg/m(2), known risks for infertility. Almost half reported a history of "dieting" and unrealistic weight goals potentially limiting energy and essential nutrients. A high number reported eating disorders, vegetarianism, low fat or low cholesterol diets, and dietary supplement use. Fourteen percent appeared not to supplement with folic acid, 13% rated exercise as "extremely" or "very active", and 28% reported a "high" perceived level of stress. This preliminary research demonstrated that a NSF can be a useful tool to identify nutrition-related lifestyle factors that may negatively impact fertility and identified weight, BMI, diet, exercise, and stress as modifiable risk factors deserving future research. NSF information can help increase awareness among health professionals and patients about the important link between nutrition, fertility, and successful reproductive outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".