ReviewGenes2026
Omics-Based Sperm-Retrieval Prediction in Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: A Critical Narrative Review and Validation Framework.
Review in Genes, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), microdissection testicular sperm extraction can provide sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection, but retrieval fails in approximately half of procedures. Genomic, transcriptomic, noncoding RNA, proteomic, metabolomic, and microbiome studies have reported molecular associations and prediction estimates. This critical narrative review examines the requirements for an assay-model system to support preoperative retrieval counseling. A focused PubMed/MEDLINE search updated on 31 August 2026 and targeted reference checking identified representative human reports and methodological guidance. Selected reports mainly illustrate discovery, development, and same-source evaluation. Common limitations include small cohorts, local assay optimization, heterogeneous outcomes, incomplete calibration, and uncertain transportability. Established karyotyping and Y-chromosome testing must be distinguished from discovery-scale genomics, which currently supports etiologic and qualified genotype-specific counseling rather than a universal calibrated retrieval model. A routine-variable multicenter model reported an external-cohort area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.8301, although cohort provenance, calibration, and clinical utility require independent confirmation. An author-developed seven-gate framework integrates clinical-question definition, assay specification, model development, internal validation, external evaluation, incremental value, and prospective impact. Future omics studies should test incremental value beyond a prespecified routine-variable model in the same patients and assess calibration, threshold consequences, net benefit, assay failure, cost, and patient outcomes.
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.