A review of mathematical models used to determine sperm donor limits for infertility treatment

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 265-271

  Sawyer, Neroli ^a   McDonald, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT   (Australia)

Author keywords

assortive mating; consanguinity; donor anonymity; familial; infertility treatment; mathematical models; phenotype; Sperm donor limits

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MALE INFERTILITY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MATING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SIBLING; SPERM DONOR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CONFIDENTIALITY; CONSANGUINITY; FEMALE; FERTILITY; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PREGNANCY;

EID: 48049102582     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.020     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. World report on ART. In: European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Available at: http://www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=807. Accessed on August 21, 2007.
2. McWhinnie A. Debate on gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents?. Hum Reprod 16 (2001) 807-817
3. Curie-Cohen M. The frequency of consanguineous matings due to multiple use of donors in artificial insemination. Am J Hum Genet 32 (1980) 589-600
4. de Boer A., Oosterwijk J.C., and Rigters-Aris C.A.E. Determination of a maximum number of artificial inseminations by donor children per sperm donor. Fertil Steril 63 (1995) 419-421
5. Wang C., Tsai M., Lee M., Huang S., Kao C., Ho H., et al. Maximum number of live births per donor in artificial insemination. Hum Reprod 22 (2007) 1363-1372
6. Danks D.M. Genetic considerations. In: Wood C. (Ed). Artificial insemination by donor (1983), Brown Prior Anderson, Melbourne 94-102
7. National Library of Health. In: Clinical Genetics Specialist Library. Available at: http://www.library.nhs.uk. Accessed on April 4, 2007.
8. Dictionary of Genetics. In: University of Edinburgh. Available at: http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/glossary. Accessed on April 11, 2007.
9. Kuring K. Donor limits-considerations beyond supply and demand (2004), Infertility Treatment Authority, Melbourne
10. Janssens M.W. No reason for a reduction in the number of offspring per sperm donor because of possible transmission of autosomal dominant diseases. Hum Reprod 18 (2003) 669-671
11. Streisand B. Who's your daddy? U.S., News & World Report, May 2, 2006.
12. Pennings G. Gamete donation in a system of need-adjusted reciprocity. Hum Reprod 20 (2005) 2990-2993
13. Rice-Oxley M. In Britain, a decline in sperm donors. In: The Christian Science Monitor [electronic] 2005:12. Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005. Accessed on April 4, 2007.
14. Sheldon T. Children at risk after sperm donor develops late onset genetic disease. Brit Med J 324 (2002) 631
15. Janssens P.M.W., Simons A.H.M., van Kooij R.J., Blokzijl E., and Dunselman G.A.J. A new Dutch law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact. Hum Reprod 21 (2006) 852-856
16. McDonough P.G. Editorial comment: excessive use of a single donor? And inadvertent consanguinity. Fertil Steril 67 (1997) 1183-1185
17. Curie-Cohen M., Luttrel L., and Shapiro S. Current practice of artificial insemination by donor in the United States. N Engl J Med 300 (1979) 585-590
18. People in the United States. In: CIA-World Fact Book. Available at: http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html. Accessed on March 24, 2007.
19. Census of Population 1970: Final Report PC(2)-3A. Women by number of children ever born (1973), US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20. Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol 3. Marriage and divorce, 1973 (1977), US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington D.C.
21. Spuhler J.N. Assortive mating with respect to physical characteristics. Eugen Quart 15 (1968) 128-140
22. Nagylaki T. The correlation between relatives with assortive mating. Ann Hum Genet 42 (1978) 131-137
23. Clark P.J. The heritability of certain anthropometric characteristics as ascertained from measurements of twins. Am J Hum Genet 8 (1956) 49-54
24. Reed E.W., and Reed S.C. Mental retardation: a family study (1965), Saunders, Philadelphia
25. Roa D.C., and Morton N.E. IQ as a paradigm in genetic epidemiology. In: Morton N.E., and Chung C.S. (Eds). Genetic epidemiology (1978), Academic Press, New York 145-181
26. Rodman H. Mate selection: incest taboos, homogamy, and mixed marriages. In: Rodman H. (Ed). Marriage, family, and society (1965), Random House, New York 48-65
27. Eckland B.K. Theories of mate selection. Soc Biol 29 (1982) 7-21
28. Adams M.S., and Neel J.V. Children of incest. Pediatrics 40 (1967) 55-62
29. Carter C.O. Risk to offspring of incest. Lancet 10 (1967) 436-437
30. Seeminova E. A study of children of incestuous marriages. Hum Hered 21 (1971) 108-128
31. Egeland T. Opinion: excessive use of a single donor? And inadvertent consanguinity. Fertil Steril 67 (1997) 1181-1182