MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144772756 · doi:10.1093/humrep/17.12.3011

Safety issues in assisted reproduction technology: The children of assisted reproduction confront the responsible conduct of assisted reproductive technologies

2002· review· en· W2144772756 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductionReproductive medicineAssisted reproductive technologyPregnancyMedicineHuman reproductionDeontological ethicsEngineering ethicsFamily medicinePsychologyInfertilityPolitical scienceBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurological sequelae and multiple birth defects have been observed in children conceived by IVF and ICSI. Multiple pregnancy is the most important risk factor. These health problems challenge the responsible practice of medicine. The core values of medicine and the deontology of the profession have been reviewed to define the responsible conduct of research and clinical practice. Professional associations have proposed guidelines to reduce health problems in assisted reproductive technology. Although these health problems could have been prevented, this response by the medical community is nonetheless an important step towards improving responsible medical practices that have become questionable over the years. Professional associations must find out means, not only to implement their guidelines, but also to prevent the recurrence of such episodes in the history of medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207