MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947332497 · doi:10.1111/jebm.12346

A Chinese practice guideline of the assisted reproductive technology strategies for women with advanced age

2019· article· en· W2947332497 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

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineFertilityMedicineGrading (engineering)Family medicineAssisted reproductive technologyDelphi methodInfertilityReproductive medicinePopulationMedical educationPregnancyEnvironmental healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More women postpone childbearing nowadays while female fertility begins to decline with advancing age. Furthermore, with the rolling out of the two-child policy, there is a huge demand for a second child for Chinese aged women. There are various assisted reproductive technology (ART) strategies applied for age-related infertility without solid evidence. On behalf of the Society of Reproductive Medicine, Chinese Medical Association, we would like to develop a Chinese guideline of ART strategies for age-related infertility. This guideline was produced following the recommendations for standard guidelines described in the 2012 WHO Handbook for guideline development. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was also followed. A protocol was formulated and a Guideline Development Group was formed with specialists of reproductive medicine, methodologists from Chinese GRADE working group, and patient representative. Questions regarding the ART strategies for aged infertility were formulated and 8 most important ones were chosen to be structured in PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). Comprehensive search and review of the literature were performed and the quality of the evidence was assessed and rated based on certain criteria and be categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low. Twenty-five recommendations were formulated among members of the Guidelines Development Group (Delphi method) basing on the overall quality of the evidence, in addition to the balance between benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource implications. The final recommendations were agreed on by consensus during face-to-face meetings. This is the first Chinese practice guideline in reproductive medicine developed following the standard and scientific method.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.342 · 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