A cross Canada survey of sperm banking practices in pediatric oncology centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors have identified fertility preservation as a major concern. Sperm banking is an established fertility preservation option in pubertal males. We sought to describe current practices in Canadian pediatric oncology programs, and to identify perceived barriers to sperm banking for male adolescents. PROCEDURE: A questionnaire was developed to (1) describe current sperm banking practices and facilities; (2) report on the utilization of sperm banking; and (3) identify barriers to sperm banking and possible solutions to improve current practices. A healthcare professional with an interest in fertility preservation within each institution was approached to participate in the study. RESULTS: Fifteen of 16 institutions participated, 2 have fertility preservation teams. Only one has written guidelines or adolescent focused educational material. Over 2 years, 50/262 (19%) adolescents in 12 institutions successfully banked a specimen. In 11 of these, additional information was available: of 85/172 (49%) adolescents offered the option to bank, 38/85 (45%) subsequently attempted. Reported barriers to sperm banking included the pressure to start therapy and restricted banking hours. Formal education of healthcare providers in fertility preservation practices, provision of financial support for families, and an adolescent focused approach were identified as important initiatives to improve sperm banking. CONCLUSIONS: There is a disparity in current sperm banking practices in Canada and at present, <25% of eligible male adolescents attempt to bank sperm. The development of a fertility preservation team, adolescent-specific guidelines, adolescent friendly sperm banking units, financial support, and improving knowledge translation among professionals and patients may improve the rates of banking.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".