MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017147770 · doi:10.1055/s-2001-18047

Cost-effectiveness of In Vitro Fertilization

2001· review· en· W2017147770 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Reproductive Medicine · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitro fertilisationInfertilityMedicineGynecologyCost effectivenessHuman fertilizationObstetricsPregnancyPopulationBiologyEnvironmental healthRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an effective but underutilized treatment for long-standing infertility. The median projected cost per IVF cycle in 2001 in the United States would be $9226 and $3531 in 25 other countries, based on previously published estimates. The cost per delivery arising from IVF cycles in 2001 in the United States would average $56,419, and $20,522 in eight other countries, based on previously published estimates. The cost-effectiveness of IVF has not been proven in three randomized controlled trials, but these trials are difficult to design and implement. Multiple gestation births significantly increase the cost of IVF treatment. IVF multiple births cost 36% more than the IVF cycles that gave rise to the multiple births. The uptake of IVF in most countries falls short of the minimum 1500 cycles per annum that would be needed per million population. Comparative international data indicate that infertile couples would increase their uptake of IVF services if the price were lower.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.305 · 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