Objective To explore the relationship between serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and semen quality in men undergoing preconception health checkups. Methods A total of 145 male preconception patients were enrolled. Semen parameters, including sperm kinetics, were measured via computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA), and serum AMH levels were detected using chemiluminescence immunoassay. Spearman’s correlation and multivariate linear regression analyses were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 145 men were included in the study. The median serum AMH level was 8.79 ng/ml, with an interquartile range of (5.25- 11.25) ng/mL. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis showed that serum AMH levels were positively correlated with total sperm count ( r = 0.268, P = 0.001), sperm concentration ( r = 0.219, P = 0.008), total PR count ( r = 0.225, P = 0.006), VCL ( r = 0.196, P = 0.018), VSL ( r = 0.179, P = 0.032), VAP ( r = 0.164, P = 0.049), and STR ( r = 0.165, P = 0.047). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that after adjusting for confounding factors, such as age and abstinence days, serum AMH remained independently associated with total sperm count ( β = 0.549, P < 0.001), total PR count ( β = 0.584, P < 0.001), and VCL ( β = 0.572, P = 0.005). Conclusion Serum AMH levels in men showed weak but statistically significant positive correlations with total sperm count (r = 0.268), total PR count (r = 0.225), and selected sperm kinetic parameters (r = 0.164–0.196). After adjusting for confounders, AMH remained independently associated with total sperm count, total PR count, and VCL, although the overall explanatory power was limited. These findings suggest that serum AMH may have a limited role as an adjunctive biomarker in male fertility assessment; however, its clinical utility is uncertain, given the weak strength of the associations. Large-scale prospective studies are required to validate these findings and determine whether AMH provides incremental value beyond conventional semen analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: