Fourteen babies born after round spermatid injection into human oocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the human in vitro fertilization procedure in the assisted reproductive technology, intracytoplasmic sperm injection is routinely used to inject a spermatozoon or a less mature elongating spermatid into the oocyte. In some infertile men, round spermatids (haploid male germ cells that have completed meiosis) are the most mature cells visible during testicular biopsy. The microsurgical injection of a round spermatid into an oocyte as a substitute is commonly referred to as round spermatid injection (ROSI). Currently, human ROSI is considered a very inefficient procedure and of no clinical value. Herein, we report the birth and development of 14 children born to 12 women following ROSI of 734 oocytes previously activated by an electric current. The round spermatids came from men who had been diagnosed as not having spermatozoa or elongated spermatids by andrologists at other hospitals after a first Micro-TESE. A key to our success was our ability to identify round spermatids accurately before oocyte injection. As of today, all children born after ROSI in our clinic are without any unusual physical, mental, or epigenetic problems. Thus, for men whose germ cells are unable to develop beyond the round spermatid stage, ROSI can, as a last resort, enable them to have their own genetic offspring.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".