DuoStim protocol- a novel fertility preservation strategy for female oncology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fertility loss is one of the primary concerns among female oncology patients of childbearing age about to undergo gonadotoxic therapy. Currently, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) followed by oocyte or embryo cryopreservation is the only technique of fertility preservation (FP) endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. This retrospective cohort study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a modified 'DuoStim' COS protocol in 36 female oncology patients at an FP clinic at St Mary's Hospital Reproductive Medicine Unit (Manchester, UK). Patients underwent two consecutive cycles of COS and outcomes assessed included total oocyte yield, mature oocytes of metaphase stage II, side effects of ovarian stimulation such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and delays to planned cancer therapy. Details of patient outcomes were determined by the review of patient medical records. Results of the study showed that this novel protocol increased oocyte yield by two-fold without delaying oncology treatment. Medical records confirmed that none of the 36 patients developed OHSS or experienced any delays in their cancer therapy. We conclude that the results of this study are encouraging and support DuoStim protocol as an effective strategy for FP in female FP patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".