Reference Values of Semen Parameters for Healthy Chinese Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To establish reference values of semen parameters in a residential, geographic, and age representative sample of healthy Chinese men. METHODS: From a national study of 1,191 healthy Chinese men, semen samples were analyzed from 105 subjects whose wives or partners were pregnant within the 12 months prior to the date when the semen sample was taken. RESULTS: The means, fifth percentiles, and percentages lower than the WHO criteria for semen parameters were, respectively: 75.8 x 10(6)/ml, 17.8 x 10(6)/ml, and 6.7% for sperm concentration; 206.9 x 10(6)/ejection, 26.3 x 10(6)/ejection, and 6.7% for total sperm count; 18.9, 3.0, and 79.1% for rapid progressive motility; 49.1, 25.3, and 52.4% for sperm progressive motility; 73.8, 49.3, and 45.7% for sperm viability, and 49.5, 25.2, and 9.5% for normal morphology. CONCLUSION: The values of semen parameters for Chinese men are lower than the WHO criteria, especially for rapid progressive motility, progressive motility, and sperm viability, and a different standard for Chinese may be needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".