Medical and non-medical faculty students’ attitudesto in vitro fertilisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: An increased need for methods of assisted reproduction associated with an ever more frequent problem of infertility in Poland sparks controversies in society.Infertility is a condition more and more frequently affecting couples of different ages trying to have a baby.According to international statistics, infertility affects 10-15% of couples of reproductive age.The aim of the study was to analyse beliefs of students regarding in vitro fertilisation in the treatment of infertility and how these attitudes are affected by the faculty (medical or non-medical), family status, religious denomination, society, and individual system of values.Material and methods: 282 female and 43 male students of both medical and non-medical faculties in Poland, aged over 19 years, were enrolled in the study.The study was conducted with the use of a survey questionnaire collected in the period of 6 months (between November 2022 and April 2023).A standardised tool in the form of the list of personal values was also used to examine the correlation between the respondents' system of values and their attitude to the method of in vitro fertilisation.Results: A positive attitude to in vitro fertilisation was dominant in the study group.No statistically significant associations were shown regarding marital status and faculty versus acceptance of in vitro fertilisation.Greater acceptance of in vitro fertilisation was observed among women (92.6%) than among men (76.7%).The subjects' values had no effect on the level of acceptance of this method of fertilisation.A considerable impact on the respondents' attitudes to the issues in the questions was exerted by the views of family and friends.Conclusions: The analysed population of Polish students shows a positive attitude towards the use of in vitro fertilisation.The authors' own studies could be used as a base to develop a health education programme.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".