MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1926113458 · doi:10.1002/pbc.25440

An approach to fertility preservation in prepubertal and postpubertal females: A critical review of current literature

2015· review· en· W1926113458 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Knight, Armando J. Lorenzo, Anne Marie Maloney, Amirrtha Srikanthan, Rachel Donen, Ellen Greenblatt, Abha A. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSickKids FoundationPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertility preservationMedicineFertilitySurvivorship curveIntensive care medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Blood cancerChildhood cancerGynecologyPediatricsCancerInternal medicineNursingPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in childhood cancer treatment have led to increasing survivorship, creating a greater emphasis on long-term management of patients, including quality of life and side effects from therapy; foremost of which is preserving fertility. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recently revised their guidelines and recommend fertility preservation options be discussed at the earliest possible opportunity for newly diagnosed patients, including methods available for children that remain investigational. Herein, we discuss the current barriers to and the impact of these guidelines for pediatric oncologists caring for young female patients, and provide some suggestions on how to approach this complicated topic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207