Discussions about reproductive and sexual health among young adult survivors of cancer
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
Fertility preservation and sexual health are increasingly important as more young cancer patients survive their disease. Our aims were to describe the frequency with which reproductive and sexual health discussions occur, and to identify clinical factors associated with these discussions. Medical records of patients aged 20-39 diagnosed with solid tumors from 2008-2010 who survived ≥2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate logistic models were used to explore the relationship between clinical factors and occurrence of discussions. We analyzed 427 survivors: median age was 35 years, 29% were men, 88% had baseline [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)] ECOG 0, and 79% were in a relationship. Only 58% and 7% of patients received discussions about reproductive and sexual health, respectively, at their initial oncology consultation, most of which were led by medical oncologists. There was a significant association between reproductive and sexual health conversations, in that those who engaged in dialog about one topic were more likely to participate in discussions about the other (P = 0.01). Patients with gynecologic malignancies (P < 0.0001) were more inclined to engage in sexual health discussions. Only a minority (19%) of patients took specific action toward fertility preservation, but the receipt of reproductive health discussions was a strong and independent driver for pursuing fertility preservation (P < 0.0001). The impact of cancer and its treatment on fertility and sexual health was inadequately addressed at the time of diagnosis among young cancer survivors. This warrants specific attention since having reproductive health discussions was strongly predictive of patients pursuing fertility preservation strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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