Fertility Restoration After Vasectomy: AUA Guideline (2026) Part II
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This Guideline aims to provide a contemporary overview of options for future fertility following vasectomy. See Part I of this series for information on indications for vasectomy, pre-operative counseling and preparation, peri-operative considerations, procedural techniques, potential risks and complications, and post-operative care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed and covered articles published between January 1, 1990 and January 30, 2024. Relevant study designs included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies (cohort with and without comparison group, case-control). Systematic reviews were searched for as an additional resource to identify any relevant studies with the designs noted above that may not have been captured in the literature search. RESULTS: The Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements based on a comprehensive systematic review of the literature. Recommendations for restoration of fertility following vasectomy are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: While this Guideline provides a summary of the current evidence related to vasectomy reversal and other fertility options after vasectomy, future review will be required as knowledge in this space continues to evolve. The unabridged version of this Guideline is available at auanet.org.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it