Assessment of ovarian dysfunction induced by environmental toxins: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study systematically assess the potential impact of various environmental pollutants as chemical, airborne, and heavy metal on ovarian function in women, focusing on ovarian reserve such as anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) as well as hormone levels like follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol (E2). By reviewing epidemiological evidence, this research aims to elucidate the reproductive toxicity of these pollutants and provide scientific support for public health policy to protect reproductive health in women of childbearing age. Methods: Following the PRISMA-P guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to include all relevant studies up to July 30, 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were used to assess study quality. Results: , have a significantly negative impact on ovarian function, especially among younger women (<35 years). Long-term exposure to particulate matter (PM)2.5 and PM10 is associated with a substantial decrease in ovarian reserve, while heavy metals (e.g., lead and cadmium) also demonstrate reproductive toxicity. However, these conclusions require validation due to both methodological limitations in the original studies (e.g., heterogeneous exposure assessments and residual confounding) and challenges in evidence synthesis (e.g., inconsistent outcome measures across cohorts), highlighting the need for further research to address these constraints. Conclusion: This review underscores that specific pollutants (e.g., PCBs, PFAS, PM) pose substantial risks to reproductive health in women of childbearing age, particularly in highly polluted environments. The findings underscore the importance of regular ovarian health monitoring, especially for women at higher risk due to occupational or environmental factors. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024567744 (accessible at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024567744).
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".