MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061718731 · doi:10.1080/01485010390219728

ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF SEMINAL PLASMA IN FERTILE AND INFERTILE MEN

2003· article· en· W2061718731 on OpenAlexaff
Yüksel Koca, Özdem Levent Özdal, Muhammet Cihat Çelik, Şenay ÜNAL, Neriman Balaban

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Andrology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntioxidant capacityAntioxidantSpermInfertilityMale infertilitySperm motilitySemenFructoseFertilityAndrologyBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineFood scienceBiochemistryPopulationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the total antioxidant capacity among fertile and infertile men. Thirty infertile patients and 20 fertility-proven healthy donors with normal sperm analysis were included in the study. Total antioxidant capacity, zinc and fructose levels of seminal plasma, and various sperm parameters were compared among fertile controls and idiopathic infertility patients prospectively. The mean antioxidant capacity of fertile controls (2.02 +/- 0.16 mmol/L) was significantly higher than that of the infertile patients group (1.78 +/- 0.23 mmol/L) (p < .01). Furthermore, asthenozoospermic and asthenoteratozoospermic groups had significantly lower mean antioxidant values (1.73 +/- 0.11 and 1.64 +/- 0.13, respectively) when compared to fertile control group (p < .01). The mean fructose level was significantly lower in the fertile control group and mean zinc level was significantly lower in the entire infertile group. On the other hand, antioxidant capacity is positively correlated to sperm motility (p = .001). Decreased antioxidant capacity was associated with impaired sperm function as a result of either increased ROS production or insufficient antioxidant capacity.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations70
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of AndrologySame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207