MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041920239 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1202300

Semen Analysis and Sperm Function Assays: What Do They Mean?

2009· review· en· W2041920239 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Reproductive Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapacitationSpermAcrosome reactionAndrologySemenInfertilityBiologyMale infertilitySemen analysisAcrosomeMedicineGeneticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appropriate laboratory testing is an integral component of the proper evaluation of the male presenting with infertility. This article reviews the semen analysis and sperm function assays. Sperm function testing is used to determine if the sperm have the biologic capacity to perform the tasks necessary to reach and fertilize ova and ultimately result in live births. For a sperm to be fertile in vivo, it must be able to traverse the cervical mucus and reach the ova. The sperm must undergo capacitation and the acrosome reaction, fuse with the oolemma, and incorporate into the ooplasm. Proper embryo development requires that functional DNA be delivered to the ooplasm. Defects in any of these steps may result in infertility. A variety of tests are available to evaluate different aspects of these functions. To accurately use these functional assays, the clinician must understand what the tests measure, what the indications are for the assays, and how to interpret the results to direct further testing or patient management.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · 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