MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099388938 · doi:10.4103/0974-7796.48782

Testicular sperm retrieval at the time of bilateral radical orchiectomy

2009· article· en· W2099388938 on OpenAlexaff
Anmar Nassir, John Grantmyre, Rekha Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueUrology Annals · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSperm RetrievalMedicineOrchiectomySpermAndrologySurgeryMale infertilityInfertilityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new indication for testicular tissue cryopreservation is discussed here. We evaluate the feasibility of testicular sperm extraction during bilateral orchiectomy for testicular cancer. A 26-year-old man with a history of right orchidopexy presented with primary infertility. Tests revealed left varicocele and oligospermia. He underwent varicocelectomy but was lost to follow-up. Nine months later, he presented with right-sided solid testicular swelling. Ultrasound examination confirmed the finding of possible neoplasm and revealed contralateral intratesticular lesion. Since the patient turned azoospermic, no semen sample could be cryopreserved. Permanent histopathological sections revealed bilateral classical seminomas. On processing the fresh healthy looking specimen, normal-looking viable sperm were obtained. Future attempts at in-vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection should be possible. This method has been described in metachronous testicular cancer, but to our knowledge, we are the first to use it in synchronous bilateral testicular tumors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrology AnnalsSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207