Chromosomal polymorphisms in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of chromosomal polymorphisms in reproductive outcomes following IVF or ICSI. Literature in CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 1974 to March 2020 with no language restrictions. Ten published cohort studies were chosen for analysis. Studies included females, males and couples undergoing assisted reproductive treatments with the presence or absence of chromosomal polymorphisms. Reproductive outcomes were reported and their quality assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Meta-analysis of five cohort studies (9,659 participants) indicated that female carriers with chromosomal polymorphisms had a higher miscarriage rate compared to non-carriers (risk ratio (RR) 1.54 (95% CI 1.19-1.98), whereas no significant association was found for males (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64-1.43) and couples (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.32-11.83) indicating that this effect appeared to be gender-dependent. There was no association between chromosomal polymorphisms and a higher rate of biochemical, clinical, ongoing pregnancy, and preterm and live birth.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".