Oocyte cryopreservation in a transgender man on long-term testosterone therapy: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report a case of ovarian stimulation for the purposes of oocyte cryopreservation in a transgender man without cessation of long-term testosterone therapy. DESIGN: Report of a unique case of fertility preservation through ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation in a transgender man who had been on testosterone therapy for 18 months before treatment. The patient elected to continue testosterone therapy throughout ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. To our knowledge, there have not been any published reports of patients undergoing oocyte cryopreservation while continuing long-term testosterone therapy. SETTING: Private fertility clinic with university affiliation. PATIENTS: A 20-year-old transgender man undergoing oocyte cryopreservation before gonadectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Fertility preservation through oocyte cryopreservation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This patient had a robust response to ovarian gonadotropin stimulation. Leuprolide acetate was used for final oocyte maturation to minimize ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome risk. RESULTS: Cryopreservation of 22 mature oocytes. CONCLUSIONS: Cryopreservation of mature oocytes is possible for patients on continued long-term testosterone therapy. The impact of long-term testosterone therapy on markers of ovarian reserve, reproductive potential, and long-term reproductive outcomes have yet to be elucidated and further studies are needed in this area.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".