Fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: IVF and embryo cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation with tamoxifen
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer chemotherapy commonly causes premature ovarian failure and infertility. Because increased estrogen levels are thought to be potentially risky in breast cancer patients, natural cycle IVF (NCIVF) has been used to preserve fertility and treat infertility in these women. METHODS: Twelve women with breast cancer received 40-60 mg tamoxifen for 6.9 +/- 0.6 days beginning on days 2-3 of their menstrual cycle (15 cycles), and had IVF (TamIVF) with either fresh embryo transfer (six cycles) or cryopreservation (nine cycles). They were compared to a retrospective control group (n = 5) who had natural cycle IVF (NCIVF, nine cycles). RESULTS: Cycle cancellation was significantly less frequent in TamIVF, compared with NCIVF (1/15 versus 4/9, P < 0.05). Compared with NCIVF, TamIVF patients had a greater number of mature oocytes (1.6 +/- 0.3 versus 0.7 +/- 0.2, P = 0.03) and embryos (1.6 +/- 0.3 versus 0.6 +/- 0.2, P = 0.02) per initiated cycle. TamIVF resulted in the generation of embryo(s) in every patient (12/12) while only three out of five patients had an embryo following NCIVF. Two out of six patients in TamIVF, and 2/5 in NCIVF conceived. One patient in the TamIVF group delivered a set of twins. After a mean follow up of 15 +/- 3.6 months (range 3-54), none of the patients had a recurrence of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Tamoxifen stimulation appears to result in a higher number of embryos and may provide a safe method of IVF and fertility preservation in breast cancer patients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it