Comparison the Life Style between Secondary Infertile and Fertile Women: Considering Potential Socio-Demographic and Reproductive Confounding Factors in a Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Secondary infertility can cause some problems for the couples involved, particularly the women. It is supposed that the life style could influence the fertility status of the couples. This study was aimed to comparison the life style between secondary infertile and fertile women.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this case-control study, 125 secondary infertile women as case group and 140 fertile women as control group were investigated in 2015. The subjects were selected from the fertility clinics and private office of the gynecologists in Zahedan, southeast of Iran. The data were collected using a structured questionnaire including reproductive history, socio-demographic variables, physical activity and Pittsburgh sleep quality. To analyze the data were used Chi-square and multiple logistic regression with Hosmer&Lemeshow method.RESULTS: By adjusting for potential confounders the secondary infertile women were more likely to have had higher BMI and be overweight (OR=2.89, 95%CI: 1.15-10.1) than fertile women. The sedentary and low sleep quality were significantly more common in infertile women than fertile women (OR=2.37, 95%CI: 1.005-9.7 and OR=2.92, 95% CI: 1.6-9.3, respectively). Also the chance of nutritional related disease among cases was more that controls (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: As life style related factors were associated with some reproductive variables in this study, thus it could be concluded that the life style and nutritional status not only influence the obstetric events, but directly effect on fertility via another paths. However, decreasing weight and increasing physical activity, improvement of sleep quality are all likely to decrease secondary infertility in women.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".