ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
A machine learning algorithm to predict the success of a second microsurgical testicular sperm extraction.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Testicular sperm extraction (TESE) is a common procedure for retrieving sperm in men with azoospermia. However, the success rates of a second TESE following an initial unsuccessful attempt remain low. This study aims to develop and evaluate a machine learning algorithm to predict the success of a second microsurgical TESE (microTESE). Methods: Medical records of 47 patients who underwent a second microTESE were analyzed. The dataset included variables such as procedure side, histopathology, preoperative Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and testosterone levels, testicular volume, and comorbidities. Supervised machine learning algorithms, including support vector machine (SVM), were employed to predict the success of the second microTESE. The dataset was split into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets. Results: The SVM model achieved an accuracy of 80% after hyperparameter tuning. Bilateral procedures and longer intervals between surgeries were associated with higher success rates, while a history of cancer correlated with negative outcomes. FSH and testosterone levels were also identified as predictive factors. The SVM model's feature importance analysis highlighted histopathology, varicocele, hormone levels, and the interval between procedures as highly correlated with the success of a second microTESE. Discussion: The machine learning model accurately predicted the presence or absence of spermatozoa in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia undergoing a second microTESE. The findings are consistent with previous studies and provide valuable insights into the predictive factors for the success of a second microTESE. However, the study's limitations include selection bias and reliance on retrospective data. Conclusion: The SVM model shows promise in predicting the success of a second microTESE by incorporating factors such as age, hormonal levels, testicular volume, and genetic evaluation. Further validation and refinement are needed to ensure the model's accuracy and applicability across different populations.
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.