Obesity and Reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review and evidence-based recommendations for the delivery of fertility care to women with obesity. OUTCOMES: The impact of obesity on fertility, fertility treatments, and both short and long-term maternal fetal outcomes was carefully considered. EVIDENCE: Published literature was reviewed through searches of MEDLINE and CINAHL using appropriate vocabulary and key words. Results included systematic reviews, clinical trials, observational studies, clinical practice guidelines, and expert opinions. VALUES: The Canadian Fertility & Andrology Society (CFAS) is a multidisciplinary, national non-profit society that serves as the voice of reproductive specialists, scientists, and allied health professionals working in the field of assisted reproduction in Canada. The evidence obtained for this guideline was reviewed and evaluated by the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) Committee of the CFAS under the leadership of the principal authors. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The implementation of these recommendations should assist clinicians and other health care providers in counselling and providing reproductive care to women with obesity. VALIDATION: This guideline and its recommendations have been reviewed and approved by the membership, the CPG Committee and the Board of Directors of the CFAS. SPONSORS: Canadian Fertility & Andrology Society. RECOMMENDATIONS: Twenty-one evidence based recommendations are provided. These recommendations specifically evaluate the impact of obesity on natural fertility, fertility treatments, and maternal-fetal outcomes. Strategies to lose weight and BMI cut-offs are also addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.005 |
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".