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
Advanced assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are established treatment for severe male-factor infertility. The risk of transmitting existing genetic abnormalities to offspring through assisted reproduction has been a particular concern in male infertility cases due to Y-chromosome microdeletion, congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens and Klinefelter’s syndrome, because these conditions generally required ICSI to achieve pregnancy. In addition, earlier studies raised the concerns of increased spontaneous abortion rate and chromosomal abnormalities with IVF and ICSI. Recently, well designed, large scale, population based studies concluded that assisted reproductive technology accounts for a more than a two-fold increase in the risk of low birth weight and major birth defects. Taken together, the bulk of the literature on the genetic risks of assisted reproduction highlights the importance of adequate pretreatment genetic evaluation and counselling. Furthermore, it is important to have proper infertility evaluation to identify and treat reversible causes of male-factor infertility that would allow couples to conceive naturally or opt for less invasive assisted reproductive technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it