A critical systematic review and meta-analyses of risk factors for fertility problems in a globalized world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, fertility awareness efforts include well-established risk factors for fertility problems. Risks disproportionately affecting women in the Global South, however, are neglected. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of relevant risk factors to examine the association between risk factors and fertility problems. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, regional databases and key organizational websites were used. Three authors screened and extracted data independently. Studies assessing exposure to risk (clinical, community-based samples) were included, and studies without control groups were excluded. Outcome of interest was fertility problems, e.g. inability to achieve pregnancy, live birth, neonatal death depending on study. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. A total of 3843 studies were identified, and 62 were included (58 in meta-analyses; n = 111,977). Results revealed the following: a ninefold risk of inability to become pregnant in genital tuberculosis (OR 8.91, 95% CI 1.89 to 42.12); an almost threefold risk in human immunodeficiency virus (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.95 to 4.42) and bacterial vaginosis (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.85 to 4.27); a twofold risk of tubal-factor infertility in female genital mutilation/cutting-Type II/III (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.15); and postnatal mortality in consanguinity (stillbirth, OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.57; neonatal death, OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02). It seems that risk factors affected reproductive processes through multiple pathways. Health promotion encompassing relevant health indicators could enhance prevention and early detection of fertility problems in the Global South and disproportionately affected populations. The multifactorial risk profile reinforces the need to place fertility within global health initiatives.
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 | 0.031 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".