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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Sikaris, K., McLachlan, R. I., Kazlauskas, R., de Kretser, D., Holden, C. A., & Handelsman, D. J. (2005) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2005-0962 · Cited by 259
Self-citation
Cited by
The Cycle of the Seminiferous Epithelium in Humans: A Need to Revisit?
Amann, R. P. (2008) · Journal of Andrology · doi:10.2164/jandrol.107.004655 · Cited by 324
Zhao, L., Yao, C., Xing, X., Jing, T., Li, P., Zhu, Z., Yang, C., Zhai, J., Tian, R., Chen, H., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19414-4 · Cited by 298
Specific Immune Cell and Cytokine Characteristics of Human Testicular Germ Cell Neoplasia
Klein, B., Haggeney, T., Fietz, D., Indumathy, S., Loveland, K. L., Hedger, M., Kliesch, S., Weidner, W., Bergmann, M., & Schuppe, H.-C. (2016) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dew211 · Cited by 114
Metadata
- Authors
- McLachlan, R. I., Rajpert-De Meyts, E., Hoei-Hansen, C. E., de Kretser, D. M., & Skakkebaek, N. E.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.