ArticleEnvironmental research2026
Extreme ambient heat and outcomes of assisted reproduction in the continental United States, 1996 to 2018.
Article in Environmental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile extreme ambient heat has been associated with several adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes little is known regarding the link between extreme ambient temperatures and human fertility.
objectiveTo evaluate the associations between extreme ambient heat and assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes.
methodsOur analysis includes 1,087,379 patients in the continental United States who underwent 1,648,907 autologous oocyte, fresh embryo ART cycles reported to the National ART Surveillance System (1996-2018). Daily ambient temperature was derived by linking patient residential ZIP-code to a spatially refined gridded meteorology dataset. Three extreme heat metrics were created using different combinations of duration and intensity of hot days (mean daily temperature exceeding the ZIP-code-specific 98th percentile), as well as a continuous measure of temperature during folliculogenesis (90 days prior to cycle start) and ovarian stimulation. We estimated the adjusted odds ratio of cycle cancellation and live birth associated with extreme heat using generalized estimating equations, accounting for correlation within patients and clinics.
resultsExtreme heat during folliculogenesis and ovarian stimulation had no or modest associations with cycle cancellation or live birth; however, there was significant heterogeneity by region. Patients in the West with ≥15 days of extreme heat during folliculogenesis had 21 % (confidence interval [CI] 5-41 %) greater odds of cycle cancellation and 28 % (CI 20-36 %) lower odds of live birth compared to patients with no extreme heat in that region. Most associations were null in other regions. Nationally, a 10 °F higher ambient temperature during folliculogenesis and ovarian stimulation was associated with a modest (1-2 %), but statistically significant, increased odds of cycle cancellation and decreased odds of live birth.
conclusionsWe did not find strong evidence for an association between extreme ambient heat and ART outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.