Clinical outcome of emergency egg vitrification for women when sperm extraction from the testicular tissues of the male partner is not successful
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of an effective oocyte cryopreservation system will have a significant impact on the clinical practice of reproductive medicine. However, the important option of emergency oocyte cryopreservation has yet to be well documented. In this report, we review the cases of 15 women with male partners who were diagnosed with nonobstructive azoospermia and for whom testicular sperm extraction on the day of oocyte retrieval failed. Emergency oocyte vitrification was performed and after two months, the vitrified oocytes were warmed and the surviving oocytes inseminated with frozen-thawed donor sperm by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). A total of 117 mature oocytes from the 15 women were vitrified and warmed. The post-warming survival rate was 84.6% (99/117), and the fertilization rate following ICSI was 83.8% (83/99). We selected 30 embryos for transfer to 15 patients, 8 of whom became pregnant. The clinical pregnancy rate was 53.3% (8/15) and the implantation rate was 30.0% (9/30). Nine healthy live births resulted from 8 pregnancies. These results indicate that emergency oocyte vitrification is an effective rescue technique that can be applied clinically with acceptable pregnancy and live birth rates when testicular sperm extraction from the male partner failed on the day of oocyte retrieval. These results also highlight another important option for oocyte cryopreservation through the use of vitrification technology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".