Protocol of the Fit-For-Fertility study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing a lifestyle programme targeting women with obesity and infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Women with obesity are at a higher risk of infertility as well as gestational and neonatal complications. Lifestyle changes are universally recommended for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments, but such intervention has only been assessed in very few robust studies. This study's objectives are therefore to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention (the Fit-For-Fertility Programme; FFFP) targeting women with obesity and subfertility in a diverse population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: with polycystic ovary syndrome or at-risk ethnicities) who are evaluated at a Canadian fertility clinic for subfertility. Women will be randomised either to (1) the FFFP (experimental arm) alone for 6 months, and then in combination with usual care for infertility if not pregnant; or (2) directly to usual fertility care (control arm). Women in the intervention group benefit from the programme up to 18 months or, if pregnant, up to 24 months or the end of the pregnancy (whichever comes first). Women from both groups are evaluated every 6 months for a maximum of 18 months. The primary outcome is live birth rate at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include fertility, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes; lifestyle and anthropometric measures; and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data collected from focus groups of participants and professionals will also be analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: (research coordinating centre) on 10 December 2018 and has been or will be approved successively by each participating centres' REB. This pragmatic RCT will inform decision-makers on improving care trajectories and policies regarding fertility treatments for women with obesity and subfertility. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03908099. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.1, 13 April 2019.
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 | 0.048 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.015 |
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".