A Survey of Attitude on Sperm Banking and Barriers to Its Use among Testicular Cancer Patients in a Multicultural Asian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: In the modern context, where fertility is crucial for couples, male factors contribute 40–50% to subfertility. Testicular cancer survivors facing subfertility due to treatments like orchidectomy and chemotherapy can benefit from sperm banking. However, awareness is lacking, especially in culturally sensitive Asian populations where sex and fertility discussions are taboo. This study aims to assess attitudes and utilization of sperm banking, evaluate its impact on pregnancy outcomes, and identify implementation obstacles. Materials and Methods: A phone interview survey targeted testicular cancer patients treated at Hospital Sultanah Aminah Johor Bahru and Sarawak General Hospital in Malaysia (2019–2023). Of the 102 identified patients, 62 participated. Investigators, using contact details from medical records, conducted interviews with a blend of quantitative and qualitative inquiries. Bivariate analysis identified factors linked to the decision to pursue sperm banking. Results: Out of 62 participants, 58.1% were aware of sperm banking, yet 90.3% chose not to utilize it. Reasons for declining included physician non-offer (41.1%), cost concerns (21.4%), a desire for prompt treatment (16.1%), lack of interest (14.3%), and other factors (7.1%). Among six patients opting for sperm banking, 50% utilized banked sperm, resulting in successful progeny for two-thirds. Notably, one case led to multiple pregnancies. Ethnicity (p = 0.046) and religion (p = 0.026) significantly influenced decisions, with Muslim Malays being the least likely to utilize sperm banking. Conclusion: Sperm banking emerges as a cost-effective strategy for safeguarding fertility in testicular cancer patients. Healthcare providers should proactively offer this option before treatment, ensuring patients are well-informed and addressing concerns to foster informed decisions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".