Chapitre 9. Oncofertilité et jeunes filles prépubères : Un « droit à un avenir ouvert » ?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemotherapy and radiotherapy have increased the life expectancy of cancer patients but may cause premature ovarian failure and irreversible loss of fertility. In the context of childhood cancers, it is now acknowledged that possible negative effects of treatment on future reproductive autonomy are a major concern. While a few options are open to patients post-puberty, the only option currently open to prepubescent girls is cryopreservation of ovarian tissue and subsequent transplantation. Yet, this procedure raises ethical concerns related to its experimental nature and to risks involved in surgery and general anesthesia. In addition, the risk of malignant cells being reintroduced in the future following autologous transplantation of the ovarian tissue is still poorly evaluated. A number of ethical issues arise surrounding this procedure. While the girl’s future reproductive autonomy is at stake, it is important to also consider risks associated with the procedure. Fertility preservation through cryopreservation of ovarian tissue thus raises a conflict between the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. We argue that the ethical complexity surrounding fertility preservation for prepubescent girls should be resolved by applying the principle of “the child’s right to an open future”. We propose to consider ‘beneficence’ through the lens of the reproductive autonomy and her potentialin becoming a genetic parent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it