MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144965895 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dep117

Risk of contamination of germplasm during cryopreservation and cryobanking in IVF units

2009· review· en· W2144965895 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryopreservationVitrificationContaminationReproductive technologySterilization (economics)Risk analysis (engineering)GermplasmBiotechnologyBiologyMedicineAndrologyBusinessEmbryoAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryopreservation of sperm, embryos and, more recently, oocytes plays an important and increasing role in assisted reproduction, due to improvements of old, and introduction of new technologies. In parallel, concerns are increasing about the technical and biological safety of these procedures. However, published data regarding the confirmed or theoretical hazards of these procedures are sparse and sometimes contradictory. The purpose of this review will summarize data and opinions about one of the most disputed risks, the potential hazard of contamination and disease transmission through cryopreservation. Special attention is concentrated on the weak points of the technology including open vitrification systems, sterilization of liquid nitrogen and safety of commonly used storage tanks including straws and cryovials. Suggestions are also made for practical measures to avoid these dangers while preserving the benefits and perspectives of new cryopreservation technologies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.271 · 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