MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410352449 · doi:10.5534/wjmh.250037

Global Andrology Forum (GAF) Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Non-obstructive Azoospermia: Bridging the Gap between Controversy and Consensus

2025· article· en· W4410352449 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe World Journal of Men s Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstructive azoospermiaBridging (networking)Consensus conferenceAzoospermiaGynecologyInternal medicineInfertilityPregnancyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), defined as the absence of sperm in the ejaculate due to testicular failure, is observed in 5% to 15% of infertile men and accounts for two-thirds of azoospermia cases. The management of NOA is marked by significant controversy and global variation in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, highlighting the crucial need for well-designed and standardized clinical practice guidelines. We present comprehensive graded clinical practice recommendations and statements for diagnosing and treating NOA, aiming to establish standardized strategies that can globally help guide practitioners in their practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to gather evidence on the epidemiological, diagnostic, and therapeutic aspects of NOA. The Global Andrology Forum (GAF) recommendations were developed through the collaboration of a global panel of experts using the Delphi method and surveys to achieve consensus. Statements were graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine "GRADE" classification as either "Strong" or "Weak." Statements receiving at least 80% expert consensus were graded as "Strong," while others were categorized as "Weak." RESULTS: The GAF has formulated a total of 49 recommendations and statements on the diagnosis and treatment of NOA, including 21 for diagnosis and 28 for treatment. The recommendations and statements were evaluated and graded by a panel of 48 GAF experts from 25 countries worldwide. The majority of experts (60.5%) had more than 10 years of clinical experience in managing NOA. CONCLUSIONS: The GAF guidelines address discrepancies in NOA management across diverse clinical settings and provide comprehensive graded recommendations to guide clinicians in its diagnosis and treatment. Developed and graded by a large worldwide panel of experts, the current guidelines present simplified, high-standard strategies that can be seamlessly integrated into the daily global practice, offering practitioners a clear framework for managing NOA.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it