MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reasons for conducting preimplantation genetic diagnosis: choosingthe optimal model of legal regulation

2020· article· en· W3047341348 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N.A. Altinnik M.A. Borodina

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreimplantation genetic diagnosisRussian federationMedicineBusinessActuarial sciencePolitical scienceBiologyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. The aim of this study is to find the most optimal model for providing access to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) based on generalization and study for existing foreign experience using countries that widely practice this type of diagnosis and have significant clinical experience and have passed the time-tested regulatory framework. Material. The legal acts and doctrinal sources of Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Israel, Canada, France, Switzerland, and Japan are studied. Methods used: general philosophical, general scientific, private scientific, special (structural-legal, comparative-legal, formal-legal). Results. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the models of legal regulation of PGD (the medical model, the high-risk model and the model of non-interference) are evaluated, the conclusion is substantiated that it is advisable to build on the combination of these to determine the legal grounds for conducting PGD in the Russian Federation. Conclusions. It has been established that it is advisable to introduce elements of the medical model through the legal definition of lists of monogenic diseases and chromosomal abnormalities that are the basis for PGD, which will eliminate legal uncertainties in understanding and regulating this procedure and provide access to this type of diagnosis within the framework of IVF programs financed from funds Compulsory medical insurance. The implementation of elements of a high-risk model is proposed in conjunction with mechanisms for authorizing PGD for special cases, including the assessment of additional risks in the presence of a major serious genetic disease or indications for determining the risks of aneuploidy. It has been argued that a variable assessment of the conditions for conducting PGD should be provided normatively and include the possibility of proactively authorizing this type of diagnosis at the expense of patients for gene mutations with a relatively low risk of transmission, diseases with incomplete penetrance, and treatable genetic diseases (including, for example, cancer breast and ovarian cancer, some cardiogenetic disorders), etc.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicDigital Transformation in LawFrench-language works237,207