MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413385452 · doi:10.7759/cureus.90695

Impact of Obesity on In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Outcomes: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4413385452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sruthi Boddeti, Khutaija Noor, Mehwish Ansar, Mahlet Abera, Suchith B Suresh, Aparna Malireddi, Safeera Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIn vitro fertilisationObesityGynecologyInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is a prominent health issue across the globe that causes negative reproductive consequences like decreased fertility. Even its effects on the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF) have drawn interest, with some studies indicating that BMI was linked to IVF failure. In this systematic review, we attempt to bring together the data regarding the impact of obesity on IVF outcomes. It also intends to quantify the adverse effects of female partner obesity on key IVF measures such as implantation, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR), and to understand the mechanism of these adverse effects in obese women. A literature search was undertaken in PubMed/Medline, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and MDPI for studies comparing the effects of obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) on IVF results. These studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case studies, literature reviews, and case-control studies. From the databases, we were able to select 533 relevant articles. The studies were evaluated, eligibility standards were followed, and 13 papers were considered. We collected data, and analyses of implantation rates, CPR, LBR, and MR were narratively reviewed because the studies were heterogeneous. This review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 scale for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A total of 13 studies, including participants, were included in the analysis. Obesity was consistently correlated with lower implantation, reduced CPR and LBR, and higher MR than women with normal BMI. To be precise, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 5-7% reduction in CPR and LBR and a 9% rise in MR, underscoring the significant impact of obesity on IVF outcomes. In terms of mechanisms, metabolic disturbances in the oocytes, reduced endometrial response, and chronic inflammation were identified as the primary causes of these poor outcomes in obese women. In addition, interventions to reduce weight, such as diet and bariatric surgery, had an impact on the success of IVF. Obesity has a significant negative effect on IVF success, both in terms of oocyte quality and endometrial responsiveness. In overweight women who are seeking fertility treatment, weight control must be part of preconception treatment. However, further studies are needed to determine effective weight loss interventions and to better understand the mechanisms underlying IVF success in this group.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207