ArticleHuman reproduction open2025
AI predictive models and advancements in microdissection testicular sperm extraction for non-obstructive azoospermia: a systematic scoping review.
Article in Human reproduction open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Re-Imagining Male Infertility Guidelines through the Global Andrology Forum.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Review
- Biological and clinical factors predicting sperm retrieval success in men with non-obstructive azoospermia.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
- AI-based imputation of anti-Müllerian hormone enables robust prediction of oocyte retrieval during controlled ovarian stimulation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- An artificial intelligence real-time rare sperm detection system for intraoperative microsurgical testicular sperm extraction.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in surgical decision-making across the perioperative continuum: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- The future of embryo engineering and fertility research in interdisciplinary collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionHow accurately can artificial intelligence (AI) models predict sperm retrieval in non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) patients undergoing micro-testicular sperm extraction (m-TESE) surgery? SUMMARY ANSWER: AI predictive models hold significant promise in predicting successful sperm retrieval in NOA patients undergoing m-TESE, although limitations regarding variability of study designs, small sample sizes, and a lack of validation studies restrict the overall generalizability of studies in this area. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have explored various predictors of successful sperm retrieval in m-TESE, including clinical and hormonal factors. However, no consistent predictive model has yet been established. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, covering PubMed and Scopus databases from 2013 to 15 May 2024. Relevant English-language studies were identified using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. We also used PubMed's 'similar articles' and 'cited by' features for thorough bibliographic screening to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant literature. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsThe review included studies on patients with NOA where AI-based models were used for predicting m-TESE outcomes, by incorporating clinical data, hormonal levels, histopathological evaluations, and genetic parameters. Various machine learning and deep learning techniques, including logistic regression, were employed. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) evaluated the bias in the studies, and their quality was assessed using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, ensuring robust reporting standards and methodological rigor. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 427 screened articles, 45 met the inclusion criteria, with most using logistic regression and machine learning to predict m-TESE outcomes. AI-based models demonstrated strong potential by integrating clinical, hormonal, and biological factors. However, limitations of the studies included small sample sizes, legal barriers, and challenges in generalizability and validation. While some studies featured larger, multicenter designs, many were constrained by sample size. Most studies had a low risk of bias in participant selection and outcome determination, and two-thirds were rated as low risk for predictor assessment, but the analysis methods varied. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The limitations of this review include the heterogeneity of the included research, potential publication bias and reliance on only two databases (PubMed and Scopus), which may limit the scope of the findings. Additionally, the absence of a meta-analysis prevents quantitative assessment of the consistency of models. Despite this, the review offers valuable insights into AI predictive models for m-TESE in NOA. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThe review highlights the potential of advanced AI techniques in predicting successful sperm retrieval for NOA patients undergoing m-TESE. By integrating clinical, hormonal, histopathological, and genetic factors, AI models can enhance decision-making and improve patient outcomes, reducing the number of unsuccessful procedures. However, to further enhance the precision and reliability of AI predictions in reproductive medicine, future studies should address current limitations by incorporating larger sample sizes and conducting prospective validation trials. This continued research and development is crucial for strengthening the applicability of AI models and ensuring broader clinical adoption. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors would like to acknowledge Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran, for financial support (Grant ID: 4020802). The authors declare no competing interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.