Fertility considerations in transgender patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An update on the latest advances in fertility preservation for transgender women, with an emphasis on the attitudes, access, and techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: With recent warming in perception toward transgendered individuals, fertility preservation services are becoming increasingly available. Although new multidisciplinary transgender clinics are appearing in North America, a 2018 report shows a referral rate for fertility preservation of only 13.5%. Despite interest in child rearing, uptake of fertility preservation is still low as patients are transitioning at increasingly younger ages. Sperm cryopreservation, ideally prior to hormonal therapy, continues to be the mainstay of fertility preservation in transwomen. It is used in conjunction with other assisted reproductive technologies such as intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection depending on the quantity of sperm available. Recent research reporting successful autologous grafting of cryopreserved prepubertal testis leading to sperm production and offspring in macaques show great promise in the context of fertility preservation in prepubertal patients. SUMMARY: Despite the increasing accessibility of fertility preservation, referral rates and usage continue to be low, suggesting that barriers are still in place for these individuals. Clinicians must continue to counsel patients regarding the process of fertility preservation and advocate for reduction of financial and infrastructural barriers.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".