Revitalizing reproductive health: innovations and future frontiers in restorative medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Infertility affects around 17.5% of reproductive-aged individuals worldwide, posing significant personal and public health challenges. Although Medically Assisted Reproduction and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART; e.g., in vitro fertilization) have advanced outcomes, many couples fail to conceive due to unaddressed pelvic, uterine, or systemic factors. Objectives: We aim to (1) define the current usage of Restorative Reproduction Medicine (RRM) in clinical practice, (2) compare RRM outcomes with conventional ART, and (3) propose an integrated model of RRM plus ART for optimal fertility care. Design: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted (INPLASY registration no. INPLASY2024110069). Data sources and methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 1995-October 2024), combining terms such as "restorative reproductive medicine," "intrauterine adhesions," "myomas," "polyps," "hydrosalpinx," "endometritis," "BMI," "thyroid dysfunction," "microbiome," and "assisted reproductive technology." Inclusion criteria: studies on uterine/systemic factors affecting infertility, focusing on surgical/pharmacological RRM interventions and ART limitations. Exclusion criteria: male-only infertility, case reports, narrative reviews, non-English publications. Quality assessment employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We also briefly noted potential publication bias due to language and study-type restrictions. Results: From >25,000 initial titles, 3 sequential screenings yielded 145 key articles addressing uterine (septum, myomas, polyps, adhesions) and systemic (body mass index (BMI) extremes, thyroid dysfunction, microbiome imbalance) factors. Surgical corrections (e.g., hysteroscopic removal of polyps/myomas, salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx) significantly improved natural conception and ART success (⩾20%-40% increase in clinical pregnancy). Chronic endometritis treatment, endometrial microbiome modulation, and BMI/thyroid optimization further improved pregnancy rates by 15%-20%. Comparisons of RRM versus ART alone indicated that RRM often lowers overall cost and may reduce miscarriage, while ART offers immediate embryo transfer. Combining RRM to correct pathologies prior to ART can boost implantation and live birth rates (⩾40%-70% improvement in some studies). Conclusion: Restorative Reproductive Medicine comprehensively addresses pelvic and systemic abnormalities, thereby enhancing fertility outcomes and complementing ART. A proposed integrated model-RRM diagnostics/interventions followed by ART if needed-maximizes success, reduces time/cost, and emphasizes holistic reproductive health. Further multicenter trials are warranted to standardize protocols and fully realize RRM's potential in modern 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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".