Clinical translation of mitochondrial replacement therapy in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders’ attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) in Canada is considered a criminal offense according to article 5(1)(f) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) (2004). The Act prohibits any practice that modifies the genome of “a human being or in vitro embryo such that the alteration is capable of being transmitted to descendants.” We carried out 32 semi-structured interviews with clinicians, researchers, patient groups, egg donors, and members of the public to explore their attitudes toward the clinical implementation of MRT in Canada. Our interview guide was informed by the socio-ethical, legal, and scientific literature of MRT. We used a thematic analysis to identify and analyze emerging themes and sub-themes. Our findings were divided into five broad themes: ( i) an outdated criminal ban, ( ii) motives for using MRT, ( iii) terminology, ( iv) practical and theoretical risks and benefits, and ( v) the feasibility of clinical translation in Canada. Although the public and stakeholders’ views on the feasibility of foreseeable translation of MRT in Canadian clinics varied, there was consensus on conducting an overdue review of the current AHRA ban on MRT.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".