Histology and sperm retrieval among men with Y chromosome microdeletions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review of Y chromosome microdeletions, azoospermia factor (AZF) deletion subtypes, histological features and microTESE sperm retrieval rates are summarized after a systematic literature review. PubMed was searched and papers were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Approximately half of infertile couples have a male factor contributing to their infertility. One of the most common genetic etiologies are Y chromosome microdeletions. Men with Y chromosome microdeletions may have rare sperm available in the ejaculate or undergo surgical sperm retrieval and subsequent intracytoplasmic sperm injection to produce offspring. Azoospermia or severe oligozoospermia are the most common semen analysis findings found in men with Y chromosome microdeletions, associated with impaired spermatogenesis. Men with complete deletions of azoospermia factor a, b, or a combination of any loci have severely impaired spermatogenesis and are nearly always azoospermic with no sperm retrievable from the testis. Deletions of the azoospermia factor c or d often have sperm production and the highest likelihood of a successful sperm retrieval. In men with AZFc deletions, histologically, 46% of men demonstrate Sertoli cell only syndrome on biopsy, whereas 38.2% have maturation arrest and 15.7% have hypospermatogenesis. The microTESE sperm retrieval rates in AZFc-deleted men range from 13-100% based on the 32 studies analyzed, with a mean sperm retrieval rate of 47%.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".