Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, We read with great interest the compendium of results of the assisted reproductive technology (ART) and intrauterine inseminations in Europe (Nyboe Andersen et al., 2009). We appreciate the difficulties associated with national data monitorization processes and with compilation and analysis of data from several countries which may have utilized different systems, standards and reporting methods. Despite all limitations and obstacles, the members of the European IVF Monitoring (EIM) Programme have managed to prepare a detailed report that gives an overview of the situation across the continent. The authors of the recent report, all whom have invested time and effort into this difficult task, should be commended. We want to draw attention, however, to one fact which we found to be confusing during appraisal of the data with its current presentation format. The ultimate purpose of ART is the delivery of a healthy infant at term, and the delivery rate is the most relevant outcome parameter that reflects the effectiveness of our practice. We appreciate that a report not including delivery rates will be definitely incomplete and less useful to the reader. This notwithstanding, delivery rates in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Turkey as shown in Tables VI and VII seem to be unrealistic and confusing as presented in the manuscript. Although clinical pregnancy rates per cycle, per aspiration and per transfer for IVF cycles range between 19.2% and 26.4% for Italy, 29.2% and 35.8% for Spain, 19.4% and 24.5% for the Netherlands and 35.2% and 46.8% for Turkey, delivery rates per cycle, per aspiration, per transfer range between 8% and 11%, 9.9% and 12.1%, 9.6% and 12.8% for Italy, Spain and Turkey, respectively, and is reported to be 0% for the Netherlands (meaning that not even a single live birth has been reported for the year 2005). Similarly, the figures for clinical pregnancy rate after ICSI range between 18.6% and 23.9% for Italy, 31.5% and 36.2% for Spain and 34.7% and 37.2% for Turkey. Corresponding delivery rates are less than half of the reported clinical pregnancy rates (8.1–10.4%, 0%, 8.5–9.1% for Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, respectively).
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 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.086 |
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".