Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A New Player in the Foetal Programming of Childhood and Adult Diseases?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is an emerging field in medicine that incorporates complex procedures and has profound ethical, moral, social, religious, and economic implications not just for the individuals who have access to this method but also for society. In this narrative review, we summarise multiple aspects of ART procedures and the possible consequences on the mother and newborn. Moreover, we provide an overview of the possible long-term consequences of ART procedures on the health of newborns, although longitudinal evidence is particularly scant. Users should be informed that ART procedures are not risk-free to prepare them for the possible negative outcomes that may occur in the perinatal period or even in childhood and adulthood. Indeed, risk estimates point to increased liability for major nonchromosomal birth defects; cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and urogenital (in male newborns) defects; and any other birth defects. Less certainty is present for the risk of neuropsychiatric sequelae in children conceived through ART. Thus, its application should be accompanied by adequate counselling and psychological support, possibly integrated into specific multidisciplinary clinical programmes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".