Attitudes Regarding Fertility Preservation in Female Adolescent Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infertility is a devastating side effect of cancer treatment. Advances in fertility research have brought new preservation techniques to the forefront for women. The implication of this research in the field of pediatric oncology has not been reported. The objective of this study was to determine whether female adolescents with a diagnosis of cancer and their parents were interested in trying to preserve fertility. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of female patients, aged 10 to 21 years, and their parents. There were 39 parent/adolescent pair responses, 3 parent-only responses, and 8 adolescent-only responses. We found that adolescents and parents had thought about the future and were interested in research treatments to help preserve fertility, but not willing to postpone cancer therapy. Achieving a state of good health was most important to the adolescent group (P<0.001). There was no statistical difference between attitudes of parents and adolescents. In summary, parents and female adolescents are interested in options to help preserve fertility during cancer treatments, but they are not willing to postpone treatment for this purpose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".