“Just what the doctor ordered”: Factors associated with oncology patients’ decision to bank sperm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to explore factors associated with oncology patients' decision to bank sperm prior to cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were referred to the oncology sperm banking program between January 2009 and March 2010 were invited to complete an 18-item questionnaire during one of their sperm banking visits. RESULTS: Of the 157 cancer patients referred to the Mount Sinai Oncology Sperm and Tissue Bank for sperm banking during the 15-month period, 79 questionnaires were returned (50% response rate). Of the respondents, 89% were informed about sperm banking by their physician. Future family planning was cited as the main reason to bank. Cost was not a barrier for the vast majority of respondents. Forty percent of respondents banked sperm within 4 days prior to initiating cancer treatment. Most respondents relied on their physician for verbal information on sperm banking. Eighty-one percent were unaware of any patient organizations that have educational materials on oncology fertility preservation. CONCLUSION: Sperm banking prior to cancer treatment is the only proven method of preserving fertility for cancer patients. The two main determinants associated with deciding whether to bank sperm were: the physician's recommendation and the patient's desire for future fatherhood. Physicians play a key role in influencing patients' decisions. The recommendation to bank sperm is a persuasive message if patients are clearly informed about their potential risk of infertility post-cancer treatment, and that sperm banking is an effective way of preserving fertility. Providing patients with education materials might enhance compliance in sperm 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".