MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288021442 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.01.002

Legal and ethical issues of uterus transplantation

2016· letter· en· W2288021442 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

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan and Tissue Transplantation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDonationTransplantationOrgan donationEthical issuesUterusChildbirthGynecologyLawSurgeryPregnancyInternal medicineEngineering ethics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinically detailed report of a successful uterus transplantation and live birth in Sweden, in which a family friend donated her uterus, provides a basis for expanded practice. Family members and friends can serve as living donors without offending legal or ethical prohibitions of paid organ donation, even though family members and friends often engage in reciprocal gift exchanges. Donations from living unrelated sources are more problematic, and there is a need to monitor donors' genuine altruism and motivation. Donation by deceased women-i.e. cadaveric donation-raises issues of uterus suitability for transplantation, and how death is diagnosed. Organs' suitability for donation is often achieved by ventilation to maintain cardiac function for blood circulation, but laws and cultures could deem that a heartbeat indicates donors' live status. Issues could arise concerning ownership and control of organs between recovery from donors and implantation into recipients, and on removal following childbirth, that require legal resolution.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.326 · 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