P4433Long-term risk of cardiovascular disease following fertility therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The use of fertility therapy is rising, but its long-term cardiovascular impact is uncertain. Objective: To summarize evidence linking the use of fertility therapy to long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: The following databases were searched without language limits from 1946–2016: MEDLINE; Embase Classic + Embase; BIOSIS Previews; POPLINE; CINAHLPlus; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; LILACS; Web of Science; Scopus; manual references; and Clinical Trials registries. Two independent reviewers screened studies and assessed study quality. Inclusion criteria were human study; case control, cohort, or randomized trial design; exposure to fertility therapy clearly reported; any cardiovascular outcome; control group without fertility therapy; minimum follow-up of 1 year; estimates adjusted for age. We used random effects models to pool hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) across studies of outcomes (cardiac event, stroke, venous thromboembolism, hypertension, and/or diabetes mellitus) comparing women who received fertility therapy with those who did not.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".