A national study of the provision of oncology sperm banking services among Canadian fertility clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to survey the current state of oncology sperm banking services provided by fertility clinics across Canada. A total of 78 Canadian fertility facilities were invited to complete a questionnaire related to the availability, accessibility, affordability and utilisation of sperm banking services for cancer patients. The total response rate was 59%, with 20 (69%) in vitro fertilisation clinics and 26 (53%) other fertility centres returning the survey. A total of 24 responding facilities accepted oncology sperm banking referrals. The time frame to book the first banking appointment for 19 (79%) facilities was within 2 days. Inconsistent practice was found regarding the consent process for cancer patients who are of minority age. Eight (33%) facilities did not provide any subsidy and charged a standard banking fee regardless of patients' financial situations. Overall, the utilisation of oncology sperm banking services was low despite its availability and established efficacy, suggesting that Canadian cancer patients are notably underserved. The study has highlighted some important issues for further consideration in improving access to sperm banking services for cancer patients, especially for adolescents. Better collaboration between oncology and reproductive medicine to target healthcare providers would help to improve sperm banking 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".