MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769371508 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dex326

Vitamin D and assisted reproductive treatment outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2769371508 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBirmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyVitamin D and neurologyLive birthObstetricsMeta-analysisCohort studySystematic reviewVitaminPediatricsMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Is serum vitamin D associated with live birth rates in women undergoing ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing ART who are replete in vitamin D have a higher live birth rate than women who are vitamin D deficient or insufficient. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of abnormal pregnancy implantation as well as obstetric complications such as pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction. However, the effect of vitamin D on conception and early pregnancy outcomes in couples undergoing ART is poorly understood. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 published cohort studies (including 2700 women) investigating the association between vitamin D and ART outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Literature searches were conducted to retrieve studies which reported on the association between vitamin D and ART outcomes. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL. Eleven studies matched the inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Live birth was reported in seven of the included studies (including 2026 patients). Live birth was found to be more likely in women replete in vitamin D when compared to women with deficient or insufficient vitamin D status (OR 1.33 [1.08-1.65]). Five studies (including 1700 patients) found that women replete in vitamin D were more likely to achieve a positive pregnancy test than women deficient or insufficient in vitamin D (OR 1.34 ([1.04-1.73]). All 11 of the included studies (including 2700 patients) reported clinical pregnancy as an outcome. Clinical pregnancy was found to be more likely in women replete in vitamin D (OR 1.46 [1.05-2.02]). Six studies (including 1635 patients) reported miscarriage by vitamin D concentrations. There was no association found between miscarriage and vitamin D concentrations (OR 1.12 [0.81-1.54]. The included studies scored well on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although strict inclusion criteria were used in the conduct of the systematic review, the included studies are heterogeneous in population characteristics and fertility treatment protocols. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings of this systematic review show that there is an association between vitamin D status and reproductive treatment outcomes achieved in women undergoing ART. Our results show that vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency could be important conditions to treat in women considering ARTs. A randomized controlled trial to investigate the benefits of vitamin D deficiency treatment should be considered to test this hypothesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.436
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.066 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it