MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282982421 · doi:10.1089/jayao.2022.0020

Factors Associated with Adolescent and Young Adult Males with Cancer Attending Fertility Consultation: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Ontario, Canada

2022· article· en· W4282982421 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charlene Rae, Andrew P. Costa, Hsien Seow, Ronald D. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFertilityOdds ratioConfidence intervalCancer registryDemographyCohortPopulationLogistic regressionCohort studyCancerGynecologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Cancer and its treatment can impair fertility in men. It is recommended that they be referred for fertility consultation before the start of treatment. This study examined factors associated with men attending a fertility consultation within 30 days of diagnosis. Methods: Males 15 to 39 years of age, diagnosed with cancer in Ontario, Canada, between 2006 and 2019, were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Linked administrative data were used to obtain other clinical and sociodemographic variables. The main outcome was a fertility consultation within 30 days of diagnosis, defined using Ontario Health Insurance Plan billing codes (606 or 628). A backward selection multivariate logistic regression was performed. Results: Of 13,720 cases identified, 8.5% attended a fertility consultation within 30 days of diagnosis. A more recent year of diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6–6.6), living in an urban area (OR = 1.3; 95% CI 1.0–1.8), receiving radiation therapy (OR = 1.4; 95% CI 1.2–1.6), chemotherapy (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.6–2.2), and reproductive organ-related cancer surgery (OR = 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.7) were associated with a greater likelihood of attending a consultation. Older age (OR = 0.2; 95% CI 0.1–0.2), living in a northern region (OR = 0.3; 95% CI 0.2–0.5), having a cancer with low (OR = 0.3; 95% CI 0.2–0.4) or moderate risk to fertility (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.5–0.7), and residing in a neighborhood with lower income (OR = 0.4; 95% CI 0.3–0.5) or residential instability quintile (OR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.6–1.0) were associated with being less likely to attend a consultation. Conclusion: Although rates of fertility consultation have increased over time, these remain low in various clinical and demographic groups. Funding for fertility preservation appears to have had an important impact on fertility consultation in young men with cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult OncologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207