Evaluation of Fertility Preservation Counseling and Treatments for Female Oncology Patients in an Urban Pediatric Canadian Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Several international organizations and guidelines have recommended implementation of structured fertility preservation (FP) discussions with patients and their families before initiation of chemotherapy and radiation treatments in children. This study aimed to identify current trends and rates in FP counseling and treatments at a Canadian pediatric tertiary care center. Objectives were to measure guideline adherence for FP counseling at our institution by determining (1) the frequency of FP counseling in pediatric female oncological patients at our institution, (2) the frequency of FP treatment in this study population, and (3) the factors associated with FP pre-treatment counseling. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed, including all pediatric and adolescent female patients (age <18) seen in consultation by the oncology team. Demographic data, as well as documentation of FP counseling and referral to a reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) specialist and subsequent FP treatment were collected. Results: A total of 89 female pediatric patients were included in our study. Forty-two patients received fertility counseling (47.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 37.2–57.5). Only 29/42 (69.0%; 95% CI: 54–80.9) received counseling before onset of treatment. A 12/42 (41.4%; 95% CI: 25–59.3) of the patients who received FP counseling were referred to an REI specialist and 11/12 proceeded with FP treatment (37.9%, 95% CI: 22.7–56). Conclusion: This study presents contemporary data on the rates of FP counseling in Canadian pediatric female oncological patients and demonstrates low rates of FP counseling in our patient population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".