Paternity After Treatment of Cryptorchidism: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Male infertility can arise from various causes, accounting for 30–50% of infertility cases. The aim of this systematic review is to establish paternity outcomes in men treated for cryptorchidism during childhood, and to evaluate the optimal age for surgical intervention in relation to fertility. Methods: This systematic review is conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251010710). The electronic databases Medline, Embase, and PubMed were searched for eligible studies from 1990 to February 2025. All types of original published human studies examining paternity outcomes in men treated for cryptorchidism during childhood were included. This review focused on comparing paternity rates between men treated for unilateral versus bilateral cryptorchidism. Additionally, studies were required to assess the influence of age at the time of treatment on the likelihood of achieving paternity later in life. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Six studies were included. Results: Five out of six studies found higher paternity rates in men treated for unilateral cryptorchidism compared to bilateral cryptorchidism. Early intervention is preferable, although delayed treatment in early childhood may still preserve fertility. One large study showed a 5% increase in the need for assisted reproductive treatment (ART) for every six-month delay in surgery, with a significantly higher use of ART observed when surgery was performed after 18 months. Conclusions: Bilateral cryptorchidism and delayed orchiopexy are linked to lower fertility and the increased use of ART. Future studies should focus on high-quality research to define the optimal age for orchiopexy in relation to paternity.
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 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".