The high-priority ethical issues of advanced paternal age: perspectives from a panel of experts in the fields of men reproduction and family building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research shows that the age of fathers at the time of conception is correlated with detrimental effect for the health of the future offspring. This situation raises ethical questions regarding the priority of the principle of reproductive autonomy of men of advanced age over the well-being of their future offspring. This problem leads to other normative implications such as the value of introducing limits to the use of medically assisted reproduction, and the development of public health interventions. For the moment, this ethical reflection is mostly speculative and calls to open up the discussion. The aim of this research was to survey experts, working in related fields to the topic of advanced paternal age (APA), regarding the top priority ethical issues of this emerging subject. METHODS: We recruited experts concerned by APA with backgrounds in health sciences, ethics, social work and reproductive medicine. We conducted a modified e-Delphi panel that lasted three rounds to build a consensual list of issues. The last round took the form of structured interviews exploring the results of the previous rounds. RESULTS: The top four issues according to the panel are: (1) Should APA be included as a criterion for prenatal genetic screening? (2) Should we raise awareness on reproductive health in relation to the age of fathers? (3) How can health-care providers support patients in the context of APA? (4) How can research inform the public without stigmatizing fathers of advanced age? CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory results suggest that the issues of how to inform various audiences properly on APA are important concerns for experts. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".