Planned Oocyte Cryopreservation: Outcomes, Motivations, and Involvement of Primary Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With improvements in oocyte cryopreservation and widespread delays in childbearing, planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC) has become an increasingly attractive option. This study aimed to (1) review POC cycle outcomes at an academic in vitro fertilization (IVF) center and (2) examine POC users’ motivations for pursuing POC, fertility knowledge, and the involvement of their primary health care providers (PHP). Materials and Methods: POC cycle outcomes were collected from IVF records of the 224 women who underwent ≥1 cycle from 2012 to 2018. The 198 who were reachable by e-mail were invited to complete an online survey. The study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (No. 32951). Results: Mean age of the 224 women at first cycle was 36.4 (range: 25–42), with a significant decrease in anti-Müllerian hormone level ( p = 0.001) and mean number of oocytes retrieved ( p = 0.006) and cryopreserved per cycle ( p = 0.042) with increasing age. From those invited for survey participation, 98 (49.5%) questionnaires were returned, with 86 evaluable. Majority of respondents were Caucasian (66%), single (93%), and earned a gross annual income of >$70,000 (74%). Strongest motivation for pursuing POC was concern about age-related fertility decline in the absence of a partner. Respondents’ annual income was positively correlated with the number of completed cycles ( p = 0.032). Half the respondents correctly identified age of onset of marked fertility decline as ≥35 years. In only 19% of cases was the conversation PHP initiated, and 29% never discussed POC with their PHP. Conclusions: More than 50% of women underwent POC at an age when fertility has begun to markedly decline. It is important for PHPs to identify and discuss POC with appropriate patients and offer accurate preliminary information and timely referrals for those interested in exploring this option.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".