Chromosomal polymorphisms in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it