MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982767550 · doi:10.1093/humrep/15.5.1121

Chromosome analysis of spermatozoa extracted from testes of men with non-obstructive azoospermia

2000· article· en· W1982767550 on OpenAlexafffund
Renée H. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMedical Research Council CanadaUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsAzoospermiaObstructive azoospermiaAndrologyChromosomeSemenGeneticsBiologyMedicineInfertilityGenePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infertile men with azoospermia now have the possibility of fathering children by testicular sperm extraction combined with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. However, there are concerns about the risk of chromosomal abnormalities in their spermatozoa. We have studied aneuploidy frequencies for chromosomes 13, 21, X and Y by multicolour fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) in testicular spermatozoa extracted from three men with non-obstructive azoospermia. The men were 34-37 years of age and had normal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) concentrations and normal 46,XY somatic karyotypes. A total of 3324 spermatozoa was analysed. The infertile patients had an elevated frequency of disomy for chromosomes 13, 21, XY disomy compared to controls but none of these reached statistical significance. Also there was no significant difference in the sex ratio or the frequency of diploidy in azoospermic patients compared to normal control donors. This first report on chromosomal aneuploidy in spermatozoa extracted from testes of patients with non-obstructive azoospermia suggests that some azoospermic men do not have a substantially increased risk of chromosomally abnormal spermatozoa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations129
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207