MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fertility preservation in the management of gynecologic cancers

2000· review· en· W2330619451 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Oncology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervical cancerCosmesisFertility preservationEndometrial cancerTrachelectomyFertilityCancerOvarian cancerGynecologyStage (stratigraphy)Breast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)OncologyInternal medicineSurgeryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality of life has become a very important issue in deciding the extent of surgical procedures for patients affected with a variety of cancers. For instance, in recent years more attention has been given to preserving organ function (eg, limb-preserving surgery in melanoma), cosmesis (eg, in breast cancer), and now reproductive function. Indeed, as cancer treatment has improved the rate of survival associated with several neoplasias, cancer survivors are more and more interested in preserving fertility potential. This article focuses on new and innovative techniques or approaches to treat gynecologic cancers while minimizing the negative fertility effects of cancer treatment. In particular, the radical trachelectomy procedure in cervical cancer, hormonal treatment of early endometrial cancer, conservative surgical management of early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer, and novel assisted reproductive technologies for women with impaired ovarian function after cancer treatment are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it