Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To give an overview of the economic aspects of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and assess the implications of economic factors for utilization and practice of ART. RECENT FINDINGS: The out-of-pocket expenses for the couple seem to be the key determinant of ART utilization. Countries with reimbursement plans, which minimize out-of-pocket expenses, achieve the highest ART utilization rates. The economic burden of ART on national healthcare expenditure is modest even for countries offering the most generous reimbursement policies. Downstream costs of ART arise from multiple pregnancies and associated prematurity-related complications. These costs can outweigh the cost of ART itself. Public reimbursement plans accompanied by strict regulations for number of embryos to be transferred seem to increase not only ART utilization rates but also the uptake of single embryo transfers. SUMMARY: Although ART is expensive for individuals, it is affordable for the society, at least in the industrialized world. Public reimbursement relieves the pressure on both the physicians and the patients for achievement of pregnancy with the minimum number of treatment attempts, consequently leading to a decrease in the number of embryos transferred and in multiple pregnancies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".