Sperm retrieval, fertilization rates, and clinical outcomes of infertile men with Y chromosome microdeletion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to explore whether a Y chromosome microdeletion (YCM) confers adverse effects on surgical sperm retrieval potential and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcomes in men with azoospermia and severe oligospermia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that included infertile men with azoospermia or severe oligospermia who were evaluated for karyotype analysis and YCM testing at a university-affiliated hospital between 2010 and 2022. Outcomes of microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) for surgical sperm retrieval were compared between men diagnosed with YCM and the control group, in which no YCM was found. Additionally, patients from each group who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF)-ICSI cycle using ejaculated sperm or surgically retrieved mature spermatozoa were compared regarding their IVF-ICSI cycle outcomes, fertilization rates, cleavage, and blastocyst formation, and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULTS: A total of 116 azoospermic and oligospermic men who underwent YCM testing were included in the study: 19 with YCM and 97 without. Overall, nine mTESE procedures were performed for patients with YCM and 38 for men from the control group. There were no significant differences between the YCM and control groups in mature sperm retrieval rates (11.1% vs. 26.3%, p=0.663), although a trend towards higher rates of elongated and round spermatids as the most mature germ cell was noted in the YCM group (66.7% vs. 28.9%, p=0.054). Of the 13 men with mature sperm - either ejaculated or surgically retrieved (mTESE) - that had known ICSI cycle outcomes, three men had proven YCMs and 10 controls had no identified YCMs. Basic characteristics were similar between the groups, except for testosterone levels, which were higher in the YCM group (23.0±13.1 vs. 9.4±6.4 nmol/L, p=0.027). Fertilization rates and cleavage rates were similar between the YCM and control groups (42.3% vs. 49.7% and 42.3% vs. 39.3%, p=0.491 and 0.774, respectively). Blastocyst formation rates, and pregnancy rates, while not statistically significant, showed a trend for favorable outcomes in the control group compared to the YCM group (24.1% vs. 7.7%, 72.7% vs. 20.0%, p=0.078 and 0.106, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: YCM does not affect sperm retrieval rates. Fertilization and cleavage rates are not impaired by microdeletions, while blastocyst formation rates and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer follow a non-significant trend for unfavorable outcomes in the YCM group. Clinical and embryonic development results should be interpreted with caution, as these groups are relatively small.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».