Creating a Global Community of Practice for Oncofertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fertility preservation in the cancer setting, known as oncofertility, is a field that requires cross-disciplinary interaction between physicians, basic scientists, clinical researchers, ethicists, lawyers, educators, and religious leaders. Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Oncofertility Consortium (OC) was formed to be a scientifically grounded, transparent, and altruistic resource, both intellectual and monetary, for building this new field of practice capable of addressing the unique needs of young patients with cancer. The OC has expanded its attention to include other nonmalignant conditions that can threaten fertility, and the work of the OC now extends around the globe, involving partners who together have created a community of shared effort, resources, and practices. The OC creates materials that are translated, disseminated, and amended by all participants in the field, and local programs of excellence have developed worldwide to accelerate the pace and improve the quality of oncofertility research and practice. Here we review the global oncofertility programs and the capacity building activities that strengthen these research and clinical programs, ultimately improving patient care.
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 | 0.064 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".