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 OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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; I 2 = 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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