MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412077982 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095199

Fertility treatments and stroke: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4412077982 on OpenAlexaff
Ginette Moores, Lindsey Zhang, Esther Bui, Aleksandra Pikula

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)MEDLINEObservational studyCochrane LibraryChecklistCohort studyFertilitySystematic reviewFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialPopulationSurgeryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Fertility therapies are becoming an increasingly common option for conception, but there is little knowledge on the interactions of assisted reproductive technology (ARTs) and stroke in women, and its use among women with a history of stroke. This scoping review aims to examine the current state of knowledge and identify the knowledge gaps regarding: (1) the stroke risk with use of fertility therapy and (2) the safety of fertility therapy among stroke survivors, to help guide future research and clinical practice. DESIGN: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist for scoping reviews was followed. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched through 20 June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: All observational studies pertaining to use of fertility and stroke in humans over the age of 18 were included in this review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Title and abstract and subsequent full-text review were performed by two independent reviewers in duplicate. A narrative synthesis of final articles for data abstraction is presented. RESULTS: 10 studies met inclusion criteria. The only meta-analysis that was included could not estimate the risk of stroke among all individuals undergoing fertility therapy due to lack of high-quality prospective cohort studies. There was only one prospective cohort that examined pregnancy among stroke survivors. Among the 32 pregnancies, one was conceived through in vitro fertilisation (IVF), although the details regarding stroke type, time since stroke, medications and IVF protocol were not specified. Therefore, the safety and effectiveness of ART among stroke survivors is currently unknown. CONCLUSION: In this comprehensive review of existing fertility therapy science and stroke risk, we identify a large knowledge gap and a major scientific need for a systematic approach and prospective studies to better inform the risk of stroke during fertility therapy, especially among stroke survivors. Understanding this risk and developing treatment strategies serves to better inform women and healthcare providers as more women with a history of stroke seek and contemplate fertility therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/PHQ4X.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207