Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The majority of men with a spinal cord injury (SCI) are infertile due to ejaculatory dysfunction and poor semen quality. The goal of this retrospective study is to present the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in a group of couples with SCI male partners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review was conducted of the records of 31 couples with SCI male partners who were treated at the Institut de réadaptation Gingras-Lindsay-de-Montréal, at PROCREA Cliniques or at a hospital center. A semen sample was obtained either by manual stimulation, penile vibratory stimulation, electroejaculation or testicular sperm extraction. ART technique was selected according to the sperm parameters. RESULTS: The mean age of the men was 29 years (23-48) and of their female partners, 29 years (25-41). The average sperm count was 110.4 M/mL ± 16.2 M/mL and the average sperm motility rate was 12.3% ± 16.5%. Among the 10 couples treated with intravaginal insemination, 9 pregnancies occurred among 7 couples. No pregnancies resulted from intrauterine insemination (2 cases). Among the 18 couples treated with in vitro fertilization, 12 pregnancies were reported among 10 couples. The pregnancy rate/cycle was 43%. Following these ART techniques, the pregnancy rate reached 55%. Three pregnancies occurred from the use of donor sperm in 7 couples. Overall, 20 men with a SCI (64% of the group) became fathers to at least one child. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility treatments are effective for couples with SCI male partners and secondary infertility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".