Sperm retrieval and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes with testicular sperm aspiration in men with severe oligozoospermia and cryptozoospermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several studies addressed the role of testicular sperm aspiration with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in azoospermic men, but few have included non-azoospermic men. The aim of this study was to evaluate testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) sperm retrieval rates and ICSI outcomes in men with severe oligozoospermia. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 88 consecutive, non-azoospermic, infertile men with idiopathic severe oligozoospermia who underwent TESA between January 2011 and January 2018. Patients were categorized into four groups according to sperm concentration: <5 and >1 million/ml (group 1), <1 and > 0.1 million/ml (group 2), <0.1 million/ml (group 3), and cryptozoospermia (group 4). RESULTS: Mean male age was 37±7 years and the mean female age was 33±4 years. Sperm was recovered successfully in 90% (79/88) of the men overall and in 100% (30/30) of the men in group 1, 97% (29/30) of the men in group 2, 88% (15/17) of the men in group 3, and 45% (5/11) of the men in group 4. Most (65%, 57/88) of the couples had an embryo transfer (ET). The overall clinical pregnancy rate per ET was 46% (26/57). The clinical pregnancy rates (per ET) were 43% (9/21) in group 1, 65% (13/20) in group 2, 36% (4/11) in group 3, and 0% (0/5) in group 4. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate TESA allows for high sperm retrieval rates and acceptable ICSI pregnancy rates in men with severe oligozoospermia. However, in our experience, TESA sperm retrieval rates and ICSI outcomes are poor in cryptozoospermic men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".