MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383620841 · doi:10.29173/spectrum131

Background, Physiology and Ethics of Artificial Placentas

2023· article· en· W4383620841 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ashley Zubkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeneficenceAutonomyEconomic JusticeBioethicsEthical issuesMedicinePregnancyIntensive care medicinePsychologyEngineering ethicsObstetricsPolitical scienceBiologyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preterm birth, referring to a baby being born before 37 weeks of pregnancy, is the leading cause of death in young children and is associated with many complications for the individuals who survive. The current intensive care treatment for preterm infants involves an abundant amount of medical equipment, physiological stressors, and ethical dilemmas. Many of these issues could be improved upon with the use of a fluid-filled sac that mimics the placental environment creating an artificial placenta (AP). This paper explores the history of how animal models were used to test AP devices. The physiological stress that preterm infants experience being removed from a placental environment and being surrounded by life-saving medical equipment is highlighted. The paper also explores potential future uses and procedures involved in APs. It concludes with an exploration of AP bioethical considerations through autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice. In summary, this paper attempts to compile an overview of AP technology through exploring the background, physiology, and ethical considerations involved.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrumSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207