Do the children born after assisted reproductive technology have an increased risk of birth defects? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) have made great progress. However, whether tube baby born after ART were at an increased risk of birth defects is not clear. Objective: To assess whether the ART increases the risk of birth defects in children born after ART. Search strategy: Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Selection criteria: Clinical trials that evaluate the risk of birth defect in children born after in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and natural conceptions (NC) were included. The primary outcome was the prevalence of birth defects. Data collection and analysis: The relative risk was used as the summary measure with random effects model. We assessed heterogeneity between studies using the I2 index. Main results: Totally 46 studies were included. The pooled relative risk (RR) estimated suggested there was an increased risk of birth defects in ART compared with the NC group (RR: 1.40; 95% CI 1.31–1.49). Twenty and fifteen studies were included to compare the risk of birth defects between NC and IVF/ICSI, respectively. The results indicated that both IVF and ICSI increase the risk of birth defects (IVF: RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.12–1.40; ICSI: RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.14–1.45). When subgroup according to plurality, 22 studies assessed the risk of birth defects after ART or NC in singletons and 15 studies evaluated the risk of birth defects in twins. The pooled RRs were 1.41 (95% CI 1.30–1.52) and 1.18 (95% CI 0.98–1.42), respectively. Conclusions: Children born after ART were at an increased risk of birth defects compared with NC. There was no difference in birth defects risk between ART twins and NC twins.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".