Analysis of the Scientific Production on Assisted Human Reproduction (2003-2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to procreate should be provided for in every country's legislation. Infertility needs to be considered as an important public health issue. The absence of regulation could affect the essence of assisted human reproduction. In the present research, a review of the following databases was considered: Scopus, WoS, and PubMed, which were selected for their contribution and scientific rigor demonstrated over time. Twenty documents corresponding to the period 2003 to February 2023 were analyzed through a review of the literature. The results obtained were that Canada and Ireland were identified as the most cited countries. Along the same lines, the most cited journals correspond to Scopus quartile 1. Likewise, the article entitled Distributive Justice and Infertility Treatment in Canada is the most cited and was published in 2008. It was concluded that the common elements in the most studied legislation in scientific publications related to assisted human reproduction in the period 2003-2023 are access to treatment, consolidation of the right to procreate, and ethics in fertilization. Received: 10 June 2023 / Accepted: 28 January 2024 / Published: 5 March 2024
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 | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.063 | 0.125 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".