Intrauterine Contraception and Athletic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral contraceptives (OCs) represent the most popular form of female contraception among the general and athletic populations. In female athletes, OCs are often used therapeutically to treat dysmenorrhea, which is perceived by many to affect training and performance. Recently, copper intrauterine devices (IUDs) and hormonal intrauterine systems (IUSs) have increased in popularity, and are now recommended by the Canadian Paediatric Society as a first-choice contraceptive. IUDs, however, present no therapeutic benefits with respect to dysmenorrhea, and may increase physical side effects associated with the menstrual cycle. Alternatively, IUSs have therapeutic application for dysmenorrhea, and therefore may present an option for athletes looking to reduce menstrual cycle symptoms. Purpose: To review the effects of IUDs and IUSs on exercise and athletic performance. Methods: Databases were searched using MeSH terms and key words in Boolean combinations. Studies were included if they 1) used a validated assessment of exercise performance (i.e., V02 max test, 1-repetition maximum, time to exhaustion), 2) included human participants who were moderately to very physically active (as assessed by a validated tool), and 3) used any copper IUD or hormonal IUS. Results: 245 titles were returned from the literature review; however, no studies met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion: The review returned limited relevant literature, and therefore, focuses on the theoretical bases of why IUDs and IUSs should be examined in the context of exercise and athletic performance. The need for future, experimental data exploring the effects of IUDs and IUSs on exercise and athletic performance is highlighted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".