Embryo donation: attitudes toward donation procedures and factors predicting willingness to donate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess infertile couples' attitudes toward the procedures of embryo donation (ED) and to identify factors predicting interest in donation. METHODS: Fifty-one couples who had received IVF treatment and had subsequently had embryos cryopreserved for >3 years were located and sent written information about the procedures for ED and possible implications of donation. A total of 49 couples agreed to participate in the study with 36 women and 31 men subsequently returning questionnaires describing their reasons for not claiming unused embryos and attitudes towards ED. RESULTS: Patients were supportive of donor screening procedures, but less comfortable sharing non-identifying information. Comfort levels declined as information became increasingly personal. Support for unconditional (i.e. the donation of embryos without conditions attached) and conditional (i.e. where couples could limit the donation of their embryos to persons/couples according to their preferences) models of donation was highly polarized and a substantial minority expressed strong opposition to each model. Willingness to donate was associated with greater comfort about disclosing personal information, a desire to know the outcome of donation and willingness to have future contact with a child, but not with current family size. CONCLUSIONS: Comfort in sharing information with a recipient couple is more important than acceptance of screening procedures, or attainment of family size goals in predicting willingness to donate embryos. Offering the option of conditional donation could increase the acceptability of ED for some patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".