Pregnancies and Time to Pregnancy in Women With and Without a Previous Chlamydia trachomatis Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A Chlamydia trachomatis infection (chlamydia) can result in tubal factor infertility in women. To assess if this association results in fewer pregnant women, we aimed to assess pregnancy incidences and time to pregnancy among women with a previous chlamydia infection compared with women without one and who were participating in the Netherlands Chlamydia Cohort Study (NECCST). METHODS: The NECCST is a cohort of women of reproductive age tested for chlamydia in a chlamydia screening trial between 2008 and 2011 and reinvited for NECCST in 2015 to 2016. Chlamydia status (positive/negative) was defined using chlamydia screening trial-nucleic acid amplification test results, chlamydia immunoglobulin G presence in serum, or self-reported chlamydia infections. Data on pregnancies were collected via questionnaires in 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. Overall pregnancies (i.e., planned and unplanned) and time to pregnancy (among women with a pregnancy intention) were compared between chlamydia-positive and chlamydia-negative women using Cox regressions. RESULTS: Of 5704 women enrolled, 1717 (30.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.9-31.3) women was chlamydia positive. Overall pregnancy proportions were similar in chlamydia-positive and chlamydia-negative women (49.0% [95% CI, 46.5-51.4] versus 50.5% [95% CI, 48.9-52.0]). Pregnancies per 1000 person-years were 53.2 (95% CI, 51.5-55.0) for chlamydia negatives and 83.0 (95% CI, 78.5-87.9) for chlamydia positives. Among women with a pregnancy intention, 12% of chlamydia-positive women had a time to pregnancy of >12 months compared with 8% of chlamydia negatives (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall pregnancy rates were not lower in chlamydia-positive women compared with chlamydia-negative women, but among women with a pregnancy intention, time to pregnancy was longer and pregnancy rates were lower in chlamydia-positive women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR-5597.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".