Endogenous progesterone in unexplained infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the possibility that altered actions of endogenous progesterone affect receptivity and contribute to unexplained infertility (UI). METHODS: Two authors electronically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and Embase databases from inception to 6 July 2022 and hand-searched according to Cochrane methodology. We included all published primary research reporting outcomes related to endogenous progesterone in natural cycles in women with UI. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score or NHLBI Score. We pooled results where appropriate using a random-effects model. Findings were reported as odds ratios or mean differences. RESULTS: 36%). Women with UI had significantly higher rates of 'out-of-phase' endometrium than controls. Nine out of 10 progesterone-mediated markers of endometrial receptivity were significantly reduced in women with UI compared to fertile controls (the remaining 1 had conflicting results). Resistance in pelvic vessels was increased and perfusion of the endometrium and sub-endometrium reduced in UI compared to fertile controls in all included studies. Progesterone receptor expression and progesterone uptake were also reduced in women with unexplained infertility. CONCLUSIONS: End-organ measures of endogenous progesterone activity are reduced in women with UI compared to fertile controls. This apparently receptor-mediated reduction in response affects endometrial receptivity and is implicated as the cause of the infertility. Further research is required to confirm whether intervention could overcome this issue, offering a new option for treating unexplained infertility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42020141041 06/08/2020.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".