MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394965123 · doi:10.1530/rep-22-0317

The current landscape of exercise and female fertility research: a narrative review

2024· review· en· W4394965123 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Ann Maher, Katie P. Wadden, Daniel Fuller, Fabien A. Basset, Hannah M. Murphy, Erin McGowan

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeFertilityNarrative reviewCurrent (fluid)GeographyHistoryMedicineEnvironmental healthArtOceanographyLiteraturePopulationGeologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In brief: Females with obesity may experience infertility and can improve their fertility through exercise. This review found that most exercise interventions improve fertility outcomes regardless of technique, intensity, or duration. More detailed reporting through the lens of exercise prescription should be included in future studies. Abstract: Female infertility disproportionately affects people with obesity. Exercise often improves fertility outcomes for this population, however, there is limited prescriptive evidence. Specifically, there is a lack of information on the ideal type, frequency, intensity, and setting of exercise to improve fertility outcomes. Using principles of exercise prescription, this review aimed to describe the scope of exercise interventions that have been explored and fertility outcomes measured for people with female infertility and obesity. A search was completed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL, identifying 16 relevant published articles. Overall, exercise had a positive impact on female fertility outcomes in people with obesity, though there were large variations in the exercise interventions prescribed and outcomes measured. Cyclic exercise (i.e. walking and cycling) was the most common technique incorporated, though a combination of cyclic, acyclic (i.e. circuit training and boot camp), or individualization was often used. Several fertility outcomes were reported; however, the rate of conception, pregnancy, and live birth rates were the most common, which, we suggest, should always be reported in fertility intervention research. We stress that future studies provide more thorough descriptions of their implemented exercise interventions to facilitate reproducibility and comparisons between studies. Closer attention to the principles of exercise prescription when developing and reporting exercise interventions will help improve fertility outcomes, mainly live birth rates, for those with female infertility and obesity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductionSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207