Perceived Stress and Fecundability: A Preconception Cohort Study of North American Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While some epidemiologic studies support the hypothesis that stress can adversely affect fertility, few prospective studies have assessed the association in couples from the general population. We used data from Pregnancy Study Online, a web-based preconception cohort study of pregnancy planners from the United States and Canada (2013-2018), to examine the association between women's and men's perceived stress levels prior to conception and fecundability. Women (aged 21-45 years) and their male partners (aged ≥21 years) who were attempting conception without fertility treatment were eligible. We measured perceived stress using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). We ascertained pregnancy information using bimonthly follow-up questionnaires of female participants. We followed 4,769 couples until self-reported pregnancy, initiation of fertility treatment, loss to follow-up, or 12 menstrual cycles of attempt time, whichever came first. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios and 95% confidence intervals, adjusting for potential confounders. Higher PSS scores among the women were associated with slight reductions in fecundability (comparing PSS scores of ≥25 vs. <10, fecundability ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.74, 1.02). PSS scores among the men were not substantially associated with fecundability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".