Sleep disorders and risk of infertility: A meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between sleep disorders and risk of infertility. METHOD: Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched form their inception to April 30, 2023. Information of study design, control group and experimental group, number of participants, and study outcomes was extracted. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS scale) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ scale). Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were used to analyze these studies. RESULT: Eight cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies were considered. The reviewed studies were high-quality. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of infertility was 1.43-fold higher in patients with sleep disturbance (HR = 1.43, 95% CI, 0.97-2.11, z = 1.79), but this was not statistically different; the risk was 1.58-fold higher in patients with OSA compared to those without OSA (HR = 1.58, 95%, CI, 0.99-2.52, z = 1.91), but this was not statistically significant. Wake-up time is also associated with infertility (OR = 1.14; 95%CI = 1.01-1.28; P = 0.037). For every hour they stay awake beyond 8:00 AM, participants had a 41% higher risk of infertility (P = 0.004). The early-to-bed/late-to-rise (EL), LE, and LL groups had a higher risk of infertility than the EE group. CONCLUSION: The present study did not find an association between sleep disorders and the risk of infertility. Therefore, more observational studies are warranted to explore the association between sleep disorders and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".