Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of reported new cancer cases is increasing every year. The probability of surviving cancer is high and is continually improving. The cancer treatment may induce ovarian or testicular failure by damaging ovarian follicles in females and spermatogonia in the males. Gonadal failure may affect all aspects of reproductive health, including pubertal development, hormone production, and sexual function in adult life. Therefore, the primary goal for cancer treatment is to ensure the highest possibility of cure and to maintain the reproductive health. The cancer patients should be provided with maximal chance to make an optimal decision without any significant impact and delay in cancer treatment. As a result of treatment innovations, the survival rates of young people have increased substantially; therefore, the need of fertility preservation has increased as well. The sperm cryopreservation and embryo cryopreservation have been standard methods of fertility preservation. Recently, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has removed the experimental label from oocyte cryopreservation. However, other fertility preservation options including ovarian tissue and whole ovary cryopreservation and testicular tissue cryopreservation for pre-pubertal boys are still considered experimental. A coordinated approach by gynecologists, urologists, oncologists, pediatricians, surgeons, fertility specialists and counselors is required to make use of available fertility preservation options. Timely and complete information on the impact of cancer treatment on fertility and fertility preservation options should be presented to all patients when a cancer treatment is planned. The possibility of fertility preservation removes a huge concern and enables cancer patients to concentrate on their treatment and getting better. The purpose of this review is to present different options currently available to preserve fertility in men, women and adolescent children diagnosed with cancer and undergoing gonadotoxic therapy. All options are listed in two tables for quick reference. Most of the information is extracted from recent publications and presented in such a manner that it is valuable for cancer patients and professionals associated with fertility preservation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".