Vitamin D and assisted reproductive treatment outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".