Neurodevelopmental Outcomes After Assisted Reproductive Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare children's cognitive, motor, and language development at 2 years of age after assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) relative to natural conception. METHODS: The 3D-Study (2010-2012) is a prospective cohort study, which sought to improve the understanding among perinatal events, obstetric outcomes, and child development. A total of 2,366 pregnant women were recruited, of whom 278 conceived with ART: ovarian stimulation, intrauterine sperm insemination, in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or in vitro maturation. Natural conception was defined as the unassisted establishment of pregnancy. Cognitive, motor, and language neurodevelopmental outcomes were compared between ART and natural conception groups at 24 months using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, 3rd edition, and the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories. Adjusted linear regression models evaluated the effect of ART on neurodevelopmental outcomes using natural conception as a reference. RESULTS: A total of 175 children in the ART group (62.9%) and 1,345 children in the natural conception group (64.4%) underwent neurodevelopmental assessment at 24 months postpartum. After adjusting for relevant confounders, children born after ART showed no difference in Bayley scales' cognitive scores (B1 [standard error]=-1.60 [0.9], 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.36 to 0.16), composite motor scores (B1 [standard error]=-1.33 [1.0], 95% CI -3.29 to 0.63), or MacArthur-Bates language scores (B1 [standard error]=-0.28 [2.1], 95% CI -4.39 to 3.83). No difference was observed when independent ART techniques were compared nor when comparing in vivo (ovarian stimulation or intrauterine insemination) or in vitro (in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or in vitro maturation) techniques (P>.05). CONCLUSION: Children born after ART had similar cognitive, motor, and language development as children born after natural conception at 2 years of age. These findings may be useful in the clinical counseling of patients undergoing ART.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".