Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 425

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Histological evaluation of the human testis—approaches to optimizing the clinical value of the assessment: Mini Review

McLachlan, R.I., Rajpert-De Meyts, E., Hoei-Hansen, C.E., de Kretser, D.M., Skakkebaek, N.E.·2007·Human Reproduction

Abstract

Testicular biopsy is a crucial assessment in reproductive practice with diagnostic and prognostic importance for assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) and risk of testicular neoplasia. Endocrine and genetic tests cannot reliably distinguish obstructive azoospermia (OA) from non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) or predict recovery of mature spermatids by testicular sperm extraction (TESE). Currently, divergent histological reporting systems and the use of imprecise terminology seriously degrade the value of the literature on TESE recovery rates and hamper evaluation of treatments and research on genotype-phenotype relationships. The rising incidence of testis cancer and carcinoma in situ (CIS), especially in infertile populations, requires that every effort be made for its early detection. We provide a systematic approach to the histological classification of spermatogenic disorders and detection of CIS in adult patients. We evaluate a large consecutive series of bilateral biopsies from infertile men and report (i) the frequency of bilateral or discordant patterns that supports the use of bilateral biopsy for comprehensive evaluation and (ii) a high prevalence of mixed patterns, particularly within the hypospermatogenesis classification, that helps account for reported success of TESE. We propose a new diagnosis code for testicular biopsies that addresses the needs of ART clinicians and allows data storage and retrieval of value in clinical practice and research.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/del279

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 425

Metadata

Authors
McLachlan, R. I., Rajpert-De Meyts, E., Hoei-Hansen, C. E., de Kretser, D. M., & Skakkebaek, N. E.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2006-08-03
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
2-16
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2170806015
Cited by
425
References
1
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Histological evaluation of the human testis—approaches to optimizing the clinical value of the assessment: Mini Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/del279
The paper
McLachlan, R. I., Rajpert-De Meyts, E., Hoei-Hansen, C. E., de Kretser, D. M., & Skakkebaek, N. E. (2007). Histological evaluation of the human testis—approaches to optimizing the clinical value of the assessment: Mini Review. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del279

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.