MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008694862 · doi:10.2174/157340408786848188

Fertility Preservation for Young Women with Cancer: Hope for the Future

2008· article· en· W2008694862 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Neal, Lindsay DiPaolo, Katie Willoughby, Mehrnoosh Faghih, Megan Karnis, Edward G. Hughes, Carol Portwine

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Women s Health Reviews · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertility preservationFertilityMedicineCancerPregnancyDiseaseGeneral partnershipYoung adultGynecologyFamily medicineIntensive care medicineGerontologyPolitical sciencePopulationEnvironmental healthInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in the diagnosis and successful treatment of childhood, adolescent, and adult cancers have allowed many young women to lead healthy lives after overcoming their disease. However, life-saving cancer treatment often impairs fertility. Chemotherapy and/or radiation may irreversibly damage the reproductive system. The maturing field of assisted conception, and specifically cryopreservation, has created a unique partnership between oncologists and fertility specialists. Improving assisted conception success and fertility sparing strategies provide options for young women who would like to have children of their own after cancer treatment. This review article focuses on the current practices and developing opportunities for women who wish to preserve their fertility when faced with gonadotoxic cancer treatment. Keywords: Fertility preservation, oncology, cancer, female, pregnancy, assisted conception

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Women s Health ReviewsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207