MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597129457 · doi:10.1159/000207613

Fertility in Female Childhood Cancer Survivors

2009· review· en· W1597129457 on OpenAlexaff
Marie L. De Bruin, Eline van Dulmen‐den Broeder, M. van den Berg, Cornelis B. Lambalk

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrine development · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityInfertilityFertility preservationAdverse effectMedicineRadiation therapyChildhood cancerPregnancyGynecologyFemale infertilityObstetricsCancerInternal medicinePopulationBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in childhood cancer treatment over the past decades have significantly improved survival, resulting in a rapidly enlarging group of childhood cancer survivors. There is much concern, however, about the effects of treatment on reproductive potential. In women there is evidence that both chemotherapy and radiotherapy may have an adverse effect on ovarian function, ovarian reserve and uterine function, clinically leading to sub-fertility, infertility, premature menopause and/or adverse pregnancy outcomes. Here we will first address normal female fertility and methods to detect decreased fertility. Hence we will focus on direct effects as well as late fertility-related adverse effects caused by chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and we will conclude with a summary of current options for fertility preservation in female childhood cancer survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrine developmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207