Corrigendum to ‘High rate of isolated teratospermia in a population of fertile men and the questionable clinical utility of sperm morphology’ [F&S Reports 5 (2024) 140-144]
Open accessAbstract
In the article ''High rate of isolated teratospermia in a population of fertile men and the questionable clinical utility of sperm morphology'' (F S Rep 2024;5:140-4), Table 2 is missing the ''>'' symbol in the row titled ''Concentration 15 (10 6 /mL).''It has now been corrected to ''Concentration >15 (10 6 /mL).''Additionally, we had mistakenly written ''Normal morphology >4%'' had a value of ''38 (55.9%),'' when it should have read ''Normal morphology >4%'' with Note: IQR ¼ interquartile range.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a prospective cohort of fertile controls undergoing contraceptive vasectomy, 55.9% had teratozoospermia <4%.
“A recent article again points to the poor clinical relevance of sperm morphology assessment, showing that in their prospective cohort of fertile controls undergoing contraceptive vasectomy, 55.9% had teratozoospermia < 4%.”
From Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
The corrected Table 2 (Abstract; no page given) reports that 30 of 68 men (44.1%) had normal morphology >4%, leaving 38 (55.9%) at or below 4%. It does not establish that all 38 were strictly below 4%, and this corrigendum does not describe the cohort as prospective or say its participants were undergoing contraceptive vasectomy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn this cohort, 86.8% of fertile men carry head abnormalities.
“In this cohort, we can also see the low predictivity of head abnormalities because 86.8% of these fertile men carry them [10, 22].”
From Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
The corrigendum’s Abstract and corrected Table 2 report normal morphology for 30 of 68 men (44.1%), but give no rate of head abnormalities. A search for “86.8%” and head abnormalities found no supporting passage in our copy; the corrigendum says the morphologic-abnormality-type section was removed from Table 2. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gatimel, N., Barbotin, A., Mery, L., Beauvillard, D., Bendayan, M., Boursier, A., Boueilh, T., Pereira, B., Chammas, J., Jacquet, J., et al. (2026) · Andrology · doi:10.1111/andr.70134 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Venue
- F&S Reports
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-03
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101
- ISSN
- 2666-3341 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11973682
- OpenAlex
- W4405744898
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- F&S Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Male Reproductive Health Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Keywords
- sperm morphology, male fertility, sperm concentration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
