Participation of Pediatric Surgery Training Programs in Fertility Preservation Initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The significant reduction in childhood cancer mortality has allowed for greater emphasis on survivorship issues, including infertility. This study evaluated the participation of pediatric surgery training programs in fertility preservation (FP) and exposure of fellows to adnexal cases. Materials and Methods: A survey was distributed to pediatric surgery fellowship program directors in the United States and Canada through email. Questions focused on FP participation, operative cases, FP program limitations, and fellow completion of adnexal cases. Results: Survey participation was 49% (28/57). Overall, 43% (12/28) of training programs report participation in FP initiatives. Of those who participated, the most common procedures performed were testicular tissue biopsy (58%) and testicular sperm extraction (42%) in males, and surgical transposition of the ovaries (83%) and laparoscopic oophorectomy (67%) in females. The greatest cited limitations on participation were that FP was another department's responsibility (50%) and lack of multidisciplinary team (31%). Notably, lack of operative experience in benign ovarian and testicular procedures (0%) was not a limitation. All programs, regardless of participation in FP, noted that their fellows performed benign and malignant adnexal cases. Conclusion: Less than half of pediatric surgery training programs participate in FP initiatives, despite adequate advanced minimally invasive training of fellows to perform these procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".