MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4381619609 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead093.016

O-016 Sperm motility has declined between 2017 and 2022 among candidate sperm donors in Denmark

2023· article· en· W4381619609 sur OpenAlexaff
Robert Montgomerie, E. Duane Lassen, A B Skytte, Allan Pacey

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpermSemenSperm qualityFertilityBiologySperm motilitySemen analysisSemen qualityAndrologySperm bankReproductionDemographyMedicineInfertilityPopulationEcologyGeneticsPregnancy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Has sperm quality among candidate sperm donors in Denmark changed in recent years (2017-2022)? Summary answer Although sperm concentration of candidate donors did not change, sperm quality (motility) declined by ∼35% after controlling for age and other potential confounds. What is known already Questions remain about whether human sperm quality has declined in recent decades. Whilst some studies support this trend, others dispute it due to potential biases in the populations studied or the different methodological approaches to measuring sperm quality. Resolution of this issue is important because of the implications for human fertility, as well as for those involved in the recruitment of donors for use in Medically Assisted Reproduction. Study design, size, duration We analyzed the semen quality of 6,774 candidate sperm donors attending for their first semen analysis at Cryos International from 2017 to 2022 at four cities in Denmark: Aarhus, Aalborg, Copenhagen, and Odense. We analyzed only the first sperm sample, whether or not the candidate was eventually accepted as a donor. All donor candidates were between 18 and 46 years old and lived in or near these four cities. Participants/materials, setting, methods Ejaculates were examined within one hour of production. Semen volume (mL) was estimated by weight and both total sperm concentration (106/mL) and the concentration of grade A and B spermatozoa were measured using the same protocols and CASA-system across all years at each site. Analyses were controlled for age, site, ejaculate volume, and the average monthly temperature when the ejaculate was produced. We used longitudinal data from accepted donors to test for methodological biases. Main results and the role of chance From 2017 to 2022, there was no evidence of changes in either semen volume (median = 3.5 mL) or sperm concentration (median = 58 million/mL) in the ejaculates of candidate donors. There was, however, clear evidence of a decline in the concentration (and total number) of grade A and B motile sperm. For the average candidate sperm donor that we studied, the concentration of grade A sperm declined from 5.15 [95% CL: 4.18, 6.34] million/mL in 2018 to 3.33 [2.71, 4.08] million/mL in 2022. This corresponds, for example, to a predicted decline in sperm quality of ∼35% for a 25-year-old candidate from Aarhus in a month when the average daily high temperature was 18.5 °C. The same pattern was evident from all four cities, but candidates at Aarhus had lower overall sperm quality (grade A sperm motility) than candidates at the other three cities. Analysis of the longitudinal data from repeated donations from all 'accepted' donors during this same period (2017 – 2022), allowed us to rule out methodological factors (sperm collection, CASA, statistical anomalies) that might have influenced these findings. Limitations, reasons for caution We cannot rule out the possibility that men with poor sperm quality were more likely to apply to be donors during the global pandemic, or that the lifestyles of candidate donors had changed during this period because of lockdowns or changes in work patterns. Wider implications of the findings Candidate sperm donors are a useful population in which to monitor changes in human semen quality over time. The results may have implications for human fertility and the recruitment of sperm donors, where motile sperm concentration is an essential selection criterion. Trial registration number not applicable

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,761

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,351
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207