MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038494492 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.141605

Social egg freezing: risk, benefits and other considerations

2015· review· en· W2038494492 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Angel Petropanagos, Alana Cattapan, Françoise Βaylis, Arthur Leader

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsOttawa Fertility CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOocyte cryopreservationGuidelineAssisted reproductive technologyReproductive medicineComputer scienceGynecologyMedicineData scienceBiologyEnvironmental healthFertilityPregnancyFertility preservationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late 2012, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) announced that they would no longer consider oocyte cryopreservation (i.e., egg freezing) to be experimental. In their joint practice guideline, published in early 2013,[1

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.268 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations116
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207