Is the wrong question being asked in infertility research?
OA: closed
AI-generated summary
The authors shift the focus of infertility research from assisted reproductive technology parameters to underlying preexisting pathology, arguing that these diagnoses better explain compromised birth outcomes in singleton pregnancies.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
A persistent finding is that assisted reproductive technology (ART) is associated with compromised birth outcomes, including higher risks for prematurity, low birthweight, and congenital malformations, even among singletons. Over the past decade, our research group, the Massachusetts Outcome Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology (MOSART), has evaluated pregnancy and birth outcomes among three groups of women, those women treated with ART, those with indicators of subfertility but without ART treatment, and fertile women. We have also explored the influence of infertility-related diagnoses on outcomes for women and infants. Over the course of our research, we have changed our perspective from an original focus on ART treatment parameters as the primary cause of excess morbidity to one centered instead on the underlying infertility-related diagnoses. This paper summarizes the research findings from our group that support this change in focus for infertility-based research from a primary emphasis on ART treatment to greater attention to the contribution of preexisting pathology underlying the infertility and suggests directions for future analyses.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Condition tags
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-08-16T09:21:09.727480+00:00