MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281296835 · doi:10.1186/s12967-022-03426-3

Association between physical activity and infertility: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4281296835 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fangfang Xie, Yanli You, Chong Guan, Yuanjia Gu, Fei Yao, Jiatuo Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Translational Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai University of Traditional Chinese MedicineNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMeta-analysisInfertilityMedicineSystematic reviewPhysical activityAssociation (psychology)Male infertilityMEDLINEBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiologyPsychologyPhysical therapyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Physical activity (PA) may protect against infertility by modulating the hypothalamic-pituitary–gonadal axis, thereby reducing gonadotropin levels, elevating immune function, and inhibiting inflammation and circulating sex hormones. However, whether PA reduces the risk of infertility remains largely unknown. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the preventive effects of PA on infertility. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases to retrieve published epidemiologic studies on the relationship between PA and infertility. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we selected English literature publishedprior to 11 April 2022, and assessed study quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Our protocol, including the full methods employed for this review, is available on PROSPERO (ID = CRD42020143344). Results Six cohort studies and four case–control studies based on 708,965 subjects and 12,580 cases were eventually screened and retained. High levels of PA were shown to reduced risk of infertility relative to low levels (cumulative relative risk [RR] = 0.59, with a 95% confidence interval CI 0.49–0.71), and we reported results for cohort studies (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.79) and case–control studies (RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.67). Our findings were comparable for men (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.41–1.04) and women (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.47–0.66). The meta-analysis of six risk estimates from five studies of low, moderate, and high PA levels showed that moderate PA may also reduce the risk of infertility compared with low PA (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38–0.77). However, high PA also appeared to slightly augment the risk of infertility compared with moderate PA (RR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.08–1.59). Conclusions This present systematic review comprehensively reflected an inverse relationship between different levels of PA and infertility, and our meta-analysis showed that a moderate-to-high PA level significantly reduced the overall risk of infertility, and that this level of PA activity was a common protective factor. In addition, limited evidence suggested that compliance with international PA guidelines would greatly lower the risk of infertility (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.45–0.74; I2 = 0.0%). Future studies, however, need to be executed to further determine the frequency, optimal dosage, and duration required to effectively attenuate the risk of infertility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.031
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Translational MedicineSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207