MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793598098

(SOGC) Clinical Practice Guideline: Informed Consent to Donate Embryos for Research Purposes

2008· article· en· W2793598098 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roxanne Mykitiuk, Erin Nelson, Jeff Nisker

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryo donationDonationInformed consentEmbryo cryopreservationCryopreservationEgg donationConfidentialityReproductive medicineGuidelineGynecologyMedicineEmbryoFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceBiologyLawAlternative medicinePregnancy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To develop guidance for clinicians participating in the informed choice process with respect to the donation of human embryos for research purposes. Recommendations: 1. As indicated in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Guidelines and the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, specific consent from both the gamete and embryo providers is required before embryos can be used for research purposes. The gamete donors may be different individuals than the embryo providers when donated gametes are used to create embryos. 2. The consent process should inform potential donors of the possible types of (and for final consent, the specific) research project(s) for which the embryos will be used; the risks involved in donating embryos to research, such as not having these embryos available for their reproductive purposes; the fact that the woman/couple will not benefit personally from donating embryos to research; the potential for commercial gain by others; the possibility that they will be contacted in future about the disposition of the embryos; the fact that confidentiality cannot be absolutely guaranteed. 3. Designation of cryopreserved embryos no longer be required for reproductive purposes to be donated to research, donated to another couple, or discarded should be discussed prior to gamete retrieval and made at the time of cryopreservation, with the understanding that in the future, final consent will be requested. The final decision as to the donation of cryopreserved embryos research should not be made until after the woman/ couple decide they no longer require the embryos for their reproductive purposes. The decision to end cryopreservation should be made separately from the decision regarding disposition of the embryos. The woman/couple will have to be re-contacted regarding the final disposition of their embryos. 4. As a result of lack of scientific data regarding the predictability of microscopic characterization of embryos and potential for pregnancy, it is recommended that all women/couples be offered the opportunity to cryopreserve all embryos not transferred during the treatment cycle and be informed that a failure to cryopreserve all embryos may increase the chance of having to undergo an additional in vitro fertilization cycle to achieve reproductive goals. 5. Research participants should be informed that they may withdraw their consent at any time before the embryos are thawed for research purposes, or, in the case of stem cell research, before a stem cell line is created. 6. Potential donors should be informed that their medical care will not be affected by their decision regarding embryo donation.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0320.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.040

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207