MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2605334635 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.692

PD13-04 RESULTS OF A NORTH AMERICAN SURVEY ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN BEING ASSESSED IN MALE INFERTILITY CLINICS: THE ANDROLOGY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

2017· article· en· W2605334635 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith Jarvi, Susan Lau, Kirk Lo, Ethan D. Grober, J.C. Trussell, James M. Hotaling, Thomas J. Walsh, Peter N. Kolettis, Victor Chow, Arma Zin, Marc Goldstein, Aaron Spitz, Marc Anthony Fischer, Scott I. Zeitlin, Eugene Fuchs, Mary K. Samplaski, Jay Sandlow, Robert E. Brannigan, Ed Ko, Tung-Chin Hsieh, James Smith

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Urology · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChinMedicineClassicsPsychoanalysisHistoryPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyInfertility: Epidemiology & Evaluation I1 Apr 2017PD13-04 RESULTS OF A NORTH AMERICAN SURVEY ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN BEING ASSESSED IN MALE INFERTILITY CLINICS: THE ANDROLOGY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM Keith Jarvi, Susan Lau, Kirk Lo, Ethan Grober, J Trussell, James Hotaling, Thomas Walsh, Peter Kolettis, Victor Chow, Arma Zin, Marc Goldstein, Aaron Spitz, Marc Fischer, Scott Zeitlin, Eugene Fuchs, Mary Samplaski, Jay Sandlow, Robert Brannigan, Ed Ko, Tung-Chin Hsieh, and James Smith Keith JarviKeith Jarvi More articles by this author , Susan LauSusan Lau More articles by this author , Kirk LoKirk Lo More articles by this author , Ethan GroberEthan Grober More articles by this author , J TrussellJ Trussell More articles by this author , James HotalingJames Hotaling More articles by this author , Thomas WalshThomas Walsh More articles by this author , Peter KolettisPeter Kolettis More articles by this author , Victor ChowVictor Chow More articles by this author , Arma ZinArma Zin More articles by this author , Marc GoldsteinMarc Goldstein More articles by this author , Aaron SpitzAaron Spitz More articles by this author , Marc FischerMarc Fischer More articles by this author , Scott ZeitlinScott Zeitlin More articles by this author , Eugene FuchsEugene Fuchs More articles by this author , Mary SamplaskiMary Samplaski More articles by this author , Jay SandlowJay Sandlow More articles by this author , Robert BranniganRobert Brannigan More articles by this author , Ed KoEd Ko More articles by this author , Tung-Chin HsiehTung-Chin Hsieh More articles by this author , and James SmithJames Smith More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.692AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The Andrology Research Consortium was established by the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction, a specialty section of the American Urological Association, to characterize men presenting for infertility investigation. METHODS A standardized questionnaire capturing information about the infertile couples’ demographics, reproductive history, previous fertility investigations, lifestyle factors and use of medications was completed by patients in 19 different clinics treating men with infertility across North America. RESULTS A total of 2506 men completed the questionnaires. The mean age of the men and their female partners was 38 +/- 7 (SD) and 34 +/- 5 years old, respectively. 1505/2421 (62%) were referred by a reproductive endocrinologist and 524/2421 (22%) by their PCP. Of the 812 who answered this question, 688 (85%) reported that they were told that they had an abnormal sperm test. Prior to the consultation with the male infertility clinic, 274/2023 (14%) reported having used Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) with another 168/2168 (7.7%) reported the use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm insertion (ICSI) therapy to treat the infertility. Only 31/274 (11%) of the couples who had undergone IUIs and 17/168 (10%) of those using IVF/ICSI reported a previous male fertility investigation. Potentially reversible causes of male infertility like use of medications and smoking were relatively common. Overall, 35/2384 (1.5%) men reporting using propecia and 74/2218 (3.3%) using testosterone. This data was skewed by the results from the University of Toronto where patients reported far lower use of propecia (1/1274) or testosterone (7/1274). Excluding the University of Toronto results, 34/1110 (3.1%) and 67/944 (7.1%) of the men reported using propecia and/or testosterone, respectively. While uncommon, 2 men reported that they had used IUI or IVF while remaining on propecia or testosterone. The testosterone was prescribed principally by PCPs, but many of the men reported that they obtained testosterone from non-physicians. In total, 352/2034 (17.3%) reported smoking. CONCLUSIONS Most men presenting to our male infertility clinics are referred from reproductive endocrinologists with abnormal sperm test results. Among couples who had previously been treated with advanced reproductive technologies like IUI, IVF or ICSI, only 11% had been referred to a urologist prior to the therapies. We identified a number of potentially reversible causes for the male sub-fertility in this group supporting the idea that more urology is needed, not less. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e272 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Keith Jarvi More articles by this author Susan Lau More articles by this author Kirk Lo More articles by this author Ethan Grober More articles by this author J Trussell More articles by this author James Hotaling More articles by this author Thomas Walsh More articles by this author Peter Kolettis More articles by this author Victor Chow More articles by this author Arma Zin More articles by this author Marc Goldstein More articles by this author Aaron Spitz More articles by this author Marc Fischer More articles by this author Scott Zeitlin More articles by this author Eugene Fuchs More articles by this author Mary Samplaski More articles by this author Jay Sandlow More articles by this author Robert Brannigan More articles by this author Ed Ko More articles by this author Tung-Chin Hsieh More articles by this author James Smith More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,081
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,161

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,143
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,291 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of UrologyMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207