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

Cost-effectiveness of In Vitro Fertilization

2001· review· en· W2017147770 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Collins

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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

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 designNot applicable
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

Citations94
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Reproductive MedicineSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207