ArticleBJUI compass2025
Differentiating between obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia: A machine learning-based approach.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Differentiating between obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia: A machine learning-based approach.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infertility is a major global concern, with azoospermia, being the most severe form of male infertility. Distinguishing between obstructive azoospermia (OA) and non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) is crucial due to their differing treatment approaches. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model to predict azoospermia subtypes using clinical, ultrasonographic, semen and hormonal analysis data. Methods: This retrospective study included all subjects diagnosed with azoospermia. All patients were evaluated by at least one urologist, had their semen sample assessed on at least two different occasions for diagnosis and underwent a testicular biopsy to determine the type of azoospermia, categorized into OA and NOA. Clinical factors, hormonal levels, semen parameters and testicular features were compared between the OA and NOA groups. Three machine learning models, including logistic regression, support vector machine and random forest, were evaluated for their accuracy in differentiating the two subtypes. Results: The study included a total of 427 patients with azoospermia, of which 326 had NOA and 101 had OA. The median age of the patients was 33.0 (IQR: 7.0) years. Our findings revealed that factors such as body mass index, testicular length, volume and longitudinal axis, semen parameters and hormonal levels differed significantly between the two groups. When these variables were input into the machine learning-based models, logistic regression achieved the highest F1-score and area under the curve value among the three models evaluated. Conclusions: This study underscores the potential of machine learning to differentiate between azoospermia subtypes using readily available clinical data. However, further research is required to validate and refine the model before it can be applied clinically.
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.