Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors that influence sperm banking before cancer therapy and assess the use and disposal of banked sperm after cancer treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Database exploratory study combined with questionnaire survey of a cohort of 55 men who cryopreserved their sperm at an Andrology Clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Rate of use, disposal and abandonment of banked sperm, current fertility, and patient satisfaction with sperm banking. RESULTS: Using logistic regression, we analyzed the factors associated with use and disposal of banked sperm, current fertility status, reproductive outcomes and quality of life in 55 survivors of cancer therapy who cryopreserved sperm at our facility. Most (93%) of the patients undergoing sperm banking before cancer treatment did not use their samples and 33% requested sperm disposal following completion of cancer therapy. Married status and fatherhood before cancer therapy were associated with higher rates of sperm disposal. Sperm disposal was requested because the subjects remained fertile, spontaneously fathered a child, or completed their family. The families of four patients (7%) who died from their cancer also requested disposal of the stored sperm. Six (11%) patients could not be located or failed to contact the clinic and were considered to have abandoned their banked sperm. Only 7% of the patients used their cryopreserved sperm for assisted reproduction. Most of the patients that banked sperm achieved pregnancy with their partners through spontaneous conception compared to through the use of cryopreserved sperm. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of disposal and abandonment of banked sperm were high following cancer therapy. Retention of fertility appears to contribute to the low utilization of banked sperm, which emphasizes the need for appropriate consent and directives regarding disposal of unused cryopreserved sperm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".