MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387440912 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.15187

<scp>FIGO</scp> statement: Fertility preservation

2023· article· en· W4387440912 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie Henry, Jonathan S. Berek, Ivonne Díaz, Dov Feldberg, Edgar Mocanu, C. Craig Niederberger, Samuel Ohlander, Nikhil Purandare, Zev Rosenwaks, Togas Tulandi, Megan Wasson, Sarikapan Wilailak, Jaideep Malhotra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertility preservationFertilityMedicineOocyte cryopreservationInfertilityOncofertilityCryopreservationMultidisciplinary approachGynecologyAdverse effectEmbryo cryopreservationPregnancyPopulationInternal medicineEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fertility preservation is a growing field in reproductive medicine that may raise ethical questions. Preservation of fertility must be discussed with the patient if gonadotoxic treatment is required, whether in the case of benign or malignant pathology, or in the management of transgender identity. As a result, surgery or chemotherapy that has fewer adverse impacts on fertility should be proposed if this does not alter the prognosis of the disease. If the risk of infertility persists, then fertility cryopreservation should be proposed for children and adults of reproductive age. Sperm, oocytes, and gonadal tissue can be cryopreserved for many years. FIGO wishes to emphasize the importance of fertility preservation in the medical and surgical management of patients, and the importance of a specialized, multidisciplinary approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.036

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207