The effects of Y chromosome microdeletions on in vitro fertilization outcomes, health abnormalities in offspring and recurrent pregnancy loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male factor infertility accounts for approximately 50% of all infertility evaluations. A common cause of severe oligozoospermia and azoospermia is Y chromosome microdeletions (YCMs). Men with these genetic microdeletions must typically undergo assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures to obtain paternity. In this review, we performed a thorough and extensive search of the literature to summarize the effects of YCMs on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes, health abnormalities in offspring and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). The PubMed database was searched using specific search terms and papers were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sperm retrieval amongst men with complete AZFa and/or AZFb deletions is extremely rare and thus data on ARTs is largely unavailable. In AZFc-deleted men undergoing assisted reproduction, the collective fertilization rate (FR) is 59.8%, the clinical pregnancy rate is 28.6% and the live birth rate is 23.4%. When successful, the YCM is always transmitted to the male offspring and the deletion size either remains unchanged or widens. YCMs generally result in decreased fertilization, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates compared to men with intact Y chromosomes during ART interventions. There is a minimal or absent association of YCMs with abnormalities in the offspring or RPL.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".