MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008663039 · doi:10.1080/14636778.2020.1726737

Posthumous planning following fertility preservation: a study of adolescent cancer patients in Israel

2020· article· en· W3008663039 on OpenAlexaff
Dorit Barlevy, Sarah Werren, Vardit Ravitsky

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Genetics and Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)FertilityFertility preservationReproductionQualitative researchRecallPsychologyMedicineSociologyHistorySocial scienceEnvironmental healthBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an Israeli qualitative study with adolescent cancer survivors and parents who had considered fertility preservation, practically all participants could not recall any discussions with healthcare providers about plans for cryopreserved biological materials in the case of death. This finding is surprising given recent court struggles in Israel over the posthumous use of cryopreserved sperm. In interviews with these adolescent survivors and their parents, intended future use of cryopreserved biological materials is directed for affected individuals’ reproductive purposes later in life, with hardly any consideration of others' use of these materials for posthumous reproduction. To avoid future ethical and legal quagmires, healthcare professionals should have frank discussions with adolescents and their parents about what to do with such materials in the case of death. This paper discusses the socio-cultural and legal Israeli context and considers the ethical implications of using minors’ biological materials for posthumous assisted reproduction in Israel.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Genetics and SocietySame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207