A plausible, scalable and slightly wrong black box: why large language models are a fascist technology that cannot be redeemed – The Grey Literature

Prevalence of psychological problems among individuals and couples during assisted reproductive technology(ART) treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis - Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Background The psychological problems of infertile couples deserve more attention given the impact on pregnancy outcomes. Aims This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to assess the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress in couples during assisted reproductive treatment. Materials and Methods We conducted searches on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from the outset until September 2024. Random-effects models were conducted to estimate the pooled prevalence of anxiety, depression and stress. Subgroup analyses were performed to seek potential sources of heterogeneity. The Egger's test was utilized to assess publication bias. Results The meta-analysis included 40 studies involving 16,042 participants. The pooled prevalence of anxiety, depression and stress symptoms in infertile women were 48.0% (95%CI 36.6%-59.9%), 35.6% (95%CI 28.0%-43.3%) and 52.2% (95%CI 13.2-91.1%) respectively, while those in infertile men were 28.4% (95%CI 15.4%-43.4%) , 18.6% (95%CI 13.4%-23.8%) and 47.2% (95%CI 16.1%-78.4%) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed the differences in country economic level, continent, assessment instrument and sample size. Conclusions Many couples experienced anxiety, depression and stress symptoms during assisted reproductive therapy. It is important for healthcare professionals to develop and implement effective strategies for the prevention and intervention of psychological issues.

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach - BMC Medical Research Methodology

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.