Evaluation and Preservation of Fertility in Patients with Testicular Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young men presenting with testicular cancer enjoy a very high prospect of cure and look forward to an average of 40 additional years of life. As such, emphasis has focused on care algorithms that are not only curative, but also minimize the consequences of the disease and associated treatments on subsequent quality of life. Concerns regarding therapy-related second malignancies and cardiovascular disease have led to management strategies emphasizing the reduction or elimination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy and increase utilization of surveillance for early-stage patients. Germ cell tumors present typically in the late 20s or early 30s, occurring in a timeframe when many young men begin to consider their families seriously. Indeed, more than 80% of young patients report significant concerns regarding diminished fertility. The biology and anatomy of most germ cell tumors lead to significant potential for disrupted fertility from both disease-related factors-hypogonadism and diminished native spermatogenesis-and manifold treatment-related complications such as ejaculatory dysfunction, chemotherapy, and radiation effects on spermatogenesis and testosterone production. Despite these unique challenges of managing fertility in patients with germ cell tumors, such efforts are rewarded with a high rate of fertility preservation for most patients with no evidence that subsequent progeny are affected by the parent's disease or treatments. Herein, we review the biological and clinical issues associated with reduced fertility potential in patients with germ cell tumors, methods for evaluating and preserving fertility in such patients, and anticipated overall success rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".