Occupational exposure to solvents and male infertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, in a case-referent study of infertility patients, cases with low motile sperm count were more likely than referents to have had exposure to organic solvents. METHODS: Occupations of men attending fertility clinics in Canada were assigned codes reflecting probable exposure to organic solvents, at four grades of intensity, using a job exposure matrix previously developed. A case referent design was used, with cases being defined as men with <12x10(6)/ml motile sperm. Information from 656 men in manual work attending a single clinic in Montreal in 1972-91 was used for the main study. A separate analysis was conducted with information for 574 men in manual work attending 10 further clinics across Canada in 1984-7. RESULTS: In the Montreal series a significant association was found between intensity of exposure to solvents and clinical findings of <12x10(6)/ml motile sperm. Odds ratios (ORs), after allowing for confounding, were 2.07 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.24 to 3.44) for moderate exposure to solvents and 3.83 (95% CI 1.37 to 10.65) for high exposure. In the second series of 568 men, the effect was confirmed at high exposure to solvents (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.01 to 8.34) but not at moderate exposure (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.92). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to organic solvents is common both at work and in recreational pursuits. The results of this study suggest that efforts should be made to identify the compounds hazardous to male fertility, and if the risk is confirmed, to regulate their use.
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".