The fertility preservation decision-making and testicular sperm retrieval outcome in older adolescents with nonmosaic Klinefelter syndrome and azoospermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to analyze the fertility preservation decision-making and the sperm retrieval rate (SRR) in older adolescents (age 15-19 years) with nonmosaic Klinefelter syndrome (KS) and azoospermia in a male reproductive clinic, and to determine the accumulated SRR in older adolescents by literature review. METHODS: Older adolescents with nonmosaic KS and azoospermia referred for hypogonadism and fertility concerns were enrolled. Reproductive counseling and fertility preservation options were offered to patients/parents. The acceptability and the reasons affecting the reproductive decision-making were analyzed. Patients/parents who agreed on fertility preservation received microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) and cryopreservation. A comprehensive literature review regarding the SRRs in older adolescents with KS was conducted. RESULTS: A total of eight older adolescents were enrolled. After fertility preservation counseling, three patients/parents (37.5%) agreed to receive mTESE, and spermatozoa were successfully retrieved in two. "Lack of interest" and "inconsistent sperm retrieval result" were the main reasons for refusal. A total of 89 older adolescents from nine articles, and ours were collected for SRR analysis. Most of the reports had a limited number of cases, and none of them described the acceptance rate of sperm retrieval in adolescents. Forty-three out of 89 older adolescents (48.3%) had successful sperm retrieval, and there was no significant difference in the SRR between the mTESE and conventional TESE. CONCLUSION: Successful testicular sperm retrieval in older adolescents with KS is not superior to those reported in adults. Adolescents and their parents should undergo a detailed reproductive consultation process and shared decision-making discussion before considering testicular sperm retrieval.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".