Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health economics of IVF and ICSI involve assessments of utilization, cost, cost-effectiveness and ability to pay. In 48 countries, utilization averaged 289 IVF/ICSI cycles per million of population per annum, ranging from two in Kazachstan, to 1657 in Israel. Higher national utilization of IVF/ICSI was associated with higher quality of health services, as indicated by lower infant mortality rates. IVF and ICSI are scientifically demanding and personnel-intensive, and are therefore expensive procedures. The average cost per IVF/ICSI cycle in 2002 would be US$9547 in the USA, and US$3518 in 25 other countries. Price elasticity estimates suggest that a 10% decrease in IVF/ICSI cost would generate a 30% increase in utilization. The average cost-effectiveness ratios in 2002 would be US$58,394 per live birth in the USA, and US$22,048 in other countries. In three randomized controlled trials, incremental costs per additional live birth with IVF compared with conventional therapy were US$ -26,586, $79,472 and $47,749. The national costs of IVF/ICSI treatment would be US$1.00 per capita in one current model, but the costs to individual couples range from 10% of annual household expenditures in European countries to 25% in Canada and the USA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".