MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6939802930 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4350989

Air pollution and female fertility: a systematic review of literature

2018· other· en· W6939802930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiscarriageAir pollutionParticulatesPregnancyAir quality indexIn vitro fertilisationAir pollutantsPollutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Air pollution is a cause of concern for human health. For instance, it is associated with an increased risk for cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disorders. In vitro and in vivo studies suggested that air pollutants could act as endocrine disruptors, promote oxidative stress and exert genotoxic effect. Whether air pollution affects female infertility is under debate. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of studies that evaluated the impact of air pollution on female infertility. We systematically searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) and SCOPUS databases to identify all relevant studies published before October 2017. No time or language restrictions were adopted, and queries were limited to human studies. We also hand-searched the reference lists of relevant studies to ensure we did not miss pertinent studies. The risk of bias and quality assessment of the studies identified were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were conception rate after spontaneous intercourse and live birth rate after in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. Secondary outcomes were first trimester miscarriage, stillbirths, infertility, number of oocytes and embryo retrieved. Eleven articles were included in the analysis. We found that in the IVF population, nitrogen dioxide and ozone were associated with a reduced live birth rate while particulate matter of 10Â mm was associated with increased miscarriage. Furthermore, in the general population, particulate matter of 2.5Â mm and between 2.5 and 10Â mm were associated with reduced fecundability, whereas sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide might promote miscarriage and stillbirths. The main limitation of our findigns resides in the fact that the desegn of studies included are observational and retrospective. Furthermore, there was a wide heterogenity among studies. Although larger trials are required before drawing definitive conclusions, it seems that air pollution could represent a matter of concern for female infertility.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→