MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416054451 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf216

Impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy on spermatogenesis: analysis of testicular histological specimens

2025· article· en· W4416054451 on OpenAlexaff
Yulia Wilk Goldsher, Hadeel Al-Hadi, Brendan Mullen, Emery Potter, Emily MacLeod, Katherine Lajkosz, Gilad Karavani, Yonah Krakowsky, Ethan D. Grober, Alexandra Millman

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHormone therapyTesticleHormoneHistology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: How does gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimen impact testicular spermatogenesis in transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals? SUMMARY ANSWER: Cyproterone acetate (CPA) and progesterone significantly impair spermatogenesis, whereas spironolactone does not, compared to no use of anti-androgen. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: GAHT is known to suppress spermatogenesis in TGD individuals assigned male at birth, but the extent of impairment varies across hormone regimens. Prior studies suggest that anti-androgens and progestogens may exert distinct effects on testicular function, but direct comparisons between regimens are limited. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective single-center cohort study including 287 TGD patients who underwent gender-affirming orchiectomy between November 2017 and January 2024. A total of 573 testis specimens were histologically reviewed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All included patients had received GAHT prior to surgery, with exposure categorized based on the type and duration of hormone therapy. The primary exposure variables were estrogen use (N = 287, 100%), anti-androgen type (CPA: N = 127, 44.3%; spironolactone: N = 110, 38.3%), and progesterone use (N = 73, 25.4%). Testicular histology was evaluated to determine spermatogenesis stage, and multivariable regression was performed to identify independent predictors of impaired sperm maturation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 287 patients were included in the study period, and 573 testis specimens were reviewed. Mean age at surgery was 33.9 years (SD = 11.7, range = 18.4-80.6), and duration of GAHT was 3.8 years (SD = 3.0, range = 1-28). Older age was associated with impairment in spermatogenesis, with a mean age of 41.4 (SD = 12.8, range = 23.0-66.5) for end-stage testis failure and a mean age of 33.4 (SD = 11.2, range = 20.2-80.6) for complete maturation (P = 0.002). Hormone therapy duration did not show a significant difference between groups (P = 0.22). GAHT included estrogen (n = 287, 100%), progesterone (n = 73, 25.4%), and an anti-androgen (n = 259, 90.2%). CPA (n = 127, 44.3%) and spironolactone (N = 110, 38.3%) were the most common anti-androgens used. Spermatogenesis was most significantly impaired with the use of CPA, with only 8.7% of patients having active spermatogenesis versus 53.3% of patients taking spironolactone (P < 0.001). Progesterone use had an independent negative effect on spermatogenesis (P = 0.005). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The retrospective design and absence of a control group of untreated individuals limit direct causal inferences. Variability in GAHT duration, adherence, and regimen composition may introduce confounding effects due to self-reporting. Additionally, histological assessment alone does not confirm functional fertility potential, and future studies should explore this aspect. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These findings provide clinically relevant insights for fertility counseling in TGD individuals, emphasizing that CPA and progesterone significantly impair spermatogenesis, whereas spironolactone may allow for greater preservation of sperm maturation. This has implications for fertility preservation discussions prior to GAHT initiation and may inform individualized hormone regimen selection based on reproductive goals. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research received no specific grant or funding. The authors have no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: n/a.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207