Safety issues in assisted reproductive technology: Aetiology of health problems in singleton ART babies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency of health problems in singleton assisted reproductive technologies (ART) babies is higher than in singletons from spontaneous gestations. Any of the following factors may be involved: in-vitro technology, ovarian stimulatory drugs and infertility itself. A literature review on premature birth, low birth weight, perinatal mortality and major birth defects in children conceived from infertility treatments was conducted. Only publications comparing the outcome of pregnancy in an infertile group of patients to a matched control group were selected. The analysis of the outcome of singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF versus artificial insemination, obtained with or without the use of ovarian stimulatory agents and obtained with or without the use of a semen donor, suggests that female infertility is an important risk factor. Criteria for screening at-risk infertile women have not yet been identified. Prospective studies designed to identify precisely the aetiology of health problems in singletons ART babies will have to be conducted. The absence of criteria correlating at-risk infertile women to health problems in their children does not allow a gynaecologist the opportunity to offer infertility treatments to the least susceptible patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".