Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infertile men have higher levels of semen reactive oxygen species (ROS) than do fertile men. High levels of semen ROS can cause sperm dysfunction, sperm DNA damage and reduced male reproductive potential. This observation has led clinicians to treat infertile men with antioxidant supplements. The purpose of this article is to discuss the rationale for antioxidant therapy in infertile men and to evaluate the data on the efficacy of dietary and in vitro antioxidant preparations on sperm function and DNA damage. To date, most clinical studies suggest that dietary antioxidant supplements are beneficial in terms of improving sperm function and DNA integrity. However, the exact mechanism of action of dietary antioxidants and the optimal dietary supplement have not been established. Moreover, most of the clinical studies are small and few have evaluated pregnancy rates. A beneficial effect of in vitro antioxidant supplements in protecting spermatozoa from exogenous oxidants has been demonstrated in most studies; however, the effect of these antioxidants in protecting sperm from endogenous ROS, gentle sperm processing and cryopreservation has not been established conclusively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".