Fertility-Related Concerns in Long-Term Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Canadian Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survivors of childhood cancer face reduced fertility, which can be a significant cause for concern. Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of fertility-related concerns and identify associated factors. Self-report data were collected with the Long-Term Survivor Questionnaire at the Alberta Children’s Hospital’s Long-Term Survivor Clinic (LTSC) between January 2021 and September 2023. Eligible participants were diagnosed before the age of 21 years, ≥2 years off therapy, and ≥13 years old. We analyzed fertility-related concerns cross-sectionally for the whole sample and longitudinally for a subsample of participants that completed three questionnaires. We included N = 311 survivors (49.2% female; mean age = 22.7 years, range = 13.9–42.1; mean time since diagnosis = 14.5 years, range = 2.7–38.4), of whom 21.2% reported fertility-related concerns. Those with additional health concerns and those who were sexually active were more likely to report fertility-related concerns, whereas lymphoma survivors were least likely to report concerns. In the subsample who completed three questionnaires (n = 80), 30% reported having concerns at least once, whereas 9% expressed persistent concerns. Fertility-related concerns are highly prevalent among young survivors of childhood cancer and warrant attention from healthcare professionals. Services that systematically address fertility-related concerns throughout long-term follow-up are urgently needed. These services should provide a space to discuss concerns, provide education, and initiate fertility consultations if desired.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".