Vasectomy: AUA Guideline (2026) Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This Guideline provides a contemporary overview of vasectomy, including a discussion of indications, pre-operative counseling and preparation, peri-operative considerations, procedural techniques, potential risks and complications, and post-operative care to ensure that healthcare providers offer accurate, evidence-based information to patients considering this method of permanent contraception. Options for future fertility following vasectomy are discussed in Part II of this Guideline series. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: 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 on vasectomy are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: While this Guideline provides a summary of the current evidence related to 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
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".