Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part I outlines the appropriate evaluation of the male in an infertile couple. Recommendations proceed from obtaining an appropriate history and physical exam (Appendix I), as well as diagnostic testing, where indicated. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January, 2000 through May, 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1[Table: see text]). This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation of male infertility as well as the association of male infertility with other important health conditions. The detection of male infertility increases the risk of subsequent development of health problems for men. In addition, specific medical conditions are associated with some causes for male infertility. Evaluation and treatment recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm (figure[Figure: see text]). CONCLUSION: The presence of male infertility is crucial to the health of patients and its effects must be considered for the welfare of society. This document will undergo updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".