White paper: Oncofertility in pediatric patients with Wilms tumor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survival of childhood Wilms tumor is currently around 90%, with many survivors reaching reproductive age. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are established risk factors for gonadal damage and are used in both COG and SIOP Wilms tumor treatment protocols. The risk of infertility in Wilms tumor patients is low but increases with intensification of treatment including the use of alkylating agents, whole abdominal radiation or radiotherapy to the pelvis. Both COG and SIOP protocols aim to limit the use of gonadotoxic treatment, but unfortunately this cannot be avoided in all patients. Infertility is considered one of the most important late effects of childhood cancer treatment by patients and their families. Thus, timely discussion of gonadal damage risk and fertility preservation options is important. Additionally, irrespective of the choice for preservation, consultation with a fertility preservation (FP) team is associated with decreased patient and family regret and better quality of life. Current guidelines recommend early discussion of the impact of therapy on potential fertility. Since most patients with Wilms tumors are prepubertal, potential FP methods for this group are still considered experimental. There are no proven methods for FP for prepubertal males (testicular biopsy for cryopreservation is experimental), and there is just a single option for prepubertal females (ovarian tissue cryopreservation), posing both technical and ethical challenges. Identification of genetic markers of susceptibility to gonadotoxic therapy may help to stratify patient risk of gonadal damage and identify patients most likely to benefit from FP methods.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".