Review of assisted reproduction techniques, laws, and regulations in Muslim countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fourteen Muslim countries were explored for available national laws, regulations, and guidelines concerning assisted reproduction techniques (ART). These documents were studied with total consideration of the ethical and religious principles followed by Islamic religion. This study found different types of legal documents issued by legislatives authorities, ethical committees, or professional bodies. Documents reviewed are directly related to assisted reproduction techniques medical use, access, or research in the field of ART. Main body of the abstract Most of the studied documents showed various degrees of deficiencies concerning legal or ethical protections and considerations. Certain documents that were examined need to be updated or amended in order to follow the continuous medical progress. The research also showed certain difficulty of legislating in countries characterized by multiculturalism and different ethical and religious traits and beliefs. Recently, Muslim legislators have made many efforts. However, the spread of legal documents among the Muslim countries is partial in volume and nature. Short conclusion The comparison of the content with international documents shows us that most of assisted reproductions legal documents in use in the studied countries demonstrate numerous deficiencies in term of structure, nature, and the coverage of controversial subjects.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".