Correlation of Periodontitis and In Vitro Fertilization Outcome: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim:This study reviewed the literature regarding the correlation of periodontal disease and outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF).Materials and Methods: "IVF", "In Vitro Fertilization", and "Periodontitis" were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases to find English articles published up to August 2022.A free online resource developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health was used to search the grey literature.Duplicate screening and extraction of citations were also carried out.No search filter was applied during searching.Two independent reviewers evaluated the title and abstract of the retrieved articles.Next, the articles retrieved in the initial search were reviewed independently for relevant information to the research question.Results: The relationship between periodontitis and IVF has been studied in a limited number of studies.According to most articles, periodontal disease may affect IVF implantation and vice versa in women who want to conceive through this procedure.Low sperm motility and reduction in sperm count were also seen in males with periodontitis.Only one study found no correlation between the presence of periodontal disease and unwanted IVF results.Conclusion: According to the results, periodontitis can impair the reproductive function since it causes systemic bacteremia.Oral health should be addressed by the primary care providers before the onset of any fertility treatment.There is; however, a need for further investigations into the possible implications of periodontal disease in women seeking fertility care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".