Vasectomy as a reversible form of contraception for select patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To provide an effective form of birth control, men may choose a reversible or permanent form of contraception. Vasectomy is presently offered as a permanent option for male contraception. We have had patients who were interested in vasectomy and reversal as a temporary birth control option. The purpose of this paper is to determine if vasectomy should be offered for selected couples as a temporary form of contraception and under which circumstances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was conducted to determine the available reversible contraceptive options, risks, failure rates and contraindications to each, and the risks and success rates of vasectomy and vasectomy reversal. RESULTS: Reversible contraceptives include hormonally based methods for women, non-hormonal anatomic barrier devices and spermatocidal agents. Hormone based therapies may be contraindicated in women with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and some cancers. Non-hormonal contraceptives are generally less effective and may be unacceptable for some couples due to higher failure rates, difficulty of use and lack of acceptance. Both vasectomy and vasectomy reversal are low risk procedures. Reversal may be performed with a high degree of success, particularly with a short obstructive interval (97% patency if performed < 3 years following vasectomy). CONCLUSION: While vasectomy should be considered a permanent form of sterilization for most couples, there are select couples, unable or unwilling to use other forms of birth control, who would benefit from an informed discussion about using a vasectomy as a reversible form of contraception.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".