Risk of ADHD in children born through assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the association between assisted reproductive techniques (ART) and the risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. A systematic search was done in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Cohort and case-control studies were included. Effect sizes were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and subgroup analyses were performed by sex, multiplicity of pregnancy, and gestational age. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE criteria. Children conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection had a slightly increased risk of ADHD compared to those conceived spontaneously (HR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10), with a moderate certainty of evidence. Three studies on ovulation induction /intrauterine insemination led to a pooled effect size of HR 1.13 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.23) with a moderate certainty of evidence. Subgroup analyses indicated an increased risk in both boys and girls. Singleton pregnancies exhibited a higher risk, while no significant association was observed in multiple pregnancies. Term births showed an elevated risk, with a higher but non-significant effect size in preterm births. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests that the magnitude of observed risk of ADHD is small in ART-conceived children, which is reassuring for parents and clinicians. Long-term monitoring, developmental screening, and tailored counselling for parents of ART-conceived children might be useful.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it