Current ethical aspects of absolute uterine factor infertility treatment using uterus transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An analysis of ethical studies related to uterus transplantation in the treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility. METHODS: Literary research using the Web of Science, Google Scholar and Pubmed databases with the following keywords: absolute uterine factor infertility, ethics, deceased donor, living donor, and uterus transplantation. An analysis of articles published in impact and reviewed journals between 2000-2021. RESULTS: Uterus transplantation is a promising treatment method for women with absolute uterine factor infertility. In the experimental studies, an ultimate goal of this complex treatment was repeatedly achieved: childbirth through a caesarean section. An important milestone towards the application of uterus transplantation in human was the Montreal criteria of its ethical feasibility, published in 2012-2013. In 2012, the first uterus transplant study from a living donor started in Sweden and, in 2016, further studies were initiated worldwide. The first childbirth from the transplanted uterus in 2014 increased the interest of ethicists in various aspects of this experimental treatment, and this trend continues. Current ethical analyzes are focused particularly on the comparison of advantages and disadvantages related to the utilization of living and deceased donors of uterus; comparing ethical aspects of gestational surrogacy and uterus transplantation; uterus transplantation as an extremely radical form of assisted reproduction; its impact on adoptions; uterus transplantation in trans-gender women; the importance of establishing an international registry for uterus transplants; and other important ethical issues associated with this complex form of assisted reproduction. CONCLUSION: Uterus transplantation is still in an experimental stage. The ethical analysis of the individual steps of this comprehensive method in the treatment of female infertility should be carried out continuously, in connection with the gradually presented outcomes of ongoing scientific research studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".