Changes in patient preferences in the disposal of cryopreserved embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The disposal of unused cryopreserved embryos can be a difficult decision for patients and the existence of unclaimed embryos raises ethical concerns for clinics. This study examined changes in patients' preferences for disposition of unused embryos and the relevance of a two-stage process for obtaining consent. METHODS: Patients who had not returned for cryopreserved embryos for over 5 years were contacted and asked to specify their current preferences for embryo disposition. These preferences were compared with dispositional choices made at the time of embryo freezing. RESULTS: Over one-third of patients had not returned for cryopreserved embryos within 5 years, and 31% of these declined to provide an updated directive. Those with a live birth through treatment were more likely to provide a new directive and more likely to choose to discard rather than donate embryos for research. Prior to IVF, the majority of non-returnees had elected to donate unused embryos for research, but 59% of all couples changed their minds after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in preferences for embryo disposition was linked to treatment outcome and highlighted the need for a two-stage process to obtain fully informed consent. In this Canadian sample, patients' affinity for research declined after treatment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".