Sperm and ova conservation: Existing standards of practice in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE: Rapid advances have occurred in both reproductive medicine and survival from childhood cancer. To establish the current level of best clinical practice for sperm, ovarian, and prepubertal tissue collection and storage, a cross-sectional survey of a major pediatric oncology collaborative study group (Pediatric Oncology Group, POG) was performed. RESULTS: Of the 110 centers surveyed, 69 questionnaires (63%) were completed. No responding center had guidelines regarding which young people should be offered sperm, ovarian, or prepubertal testicular tissue conservation; 93% centers had offered sperm and 10% ova conservation; 15% had offered sperm conservation to males prior to completion of sexual development and 3% to girls prior to sexual maturation. All centers were more likely to offer sperm conservation than ova conservation for any given disease. The most common diseases for which conservation was offered were Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and sarcomas. Fertility counseling was offered in a variety of settings by 71% of centers by health care professionals, including doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and geneticists. CONCLUSION: There was little agreement regarding appropriate indications for, and method of, gamete preservation in children's cancer centers. It is hard to establish best clinical practice from these data. Unresolved medical, legal, and ethical issues necessitate the development of a voluntary code of practice and guidelines in order to ensure good clinical practice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".