Effect of DHA supplementation on DHA status and sperm motility in asthenozoospermic males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of supplementation with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) on DHA levels in serum, seminal plasma, and sperm of asthenozoospermic men as well as on sperm motility were examined in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled manner. Asthenozoospermic men (n = 28; < or =50% motility) were supplemented with 0, 400, or 800 mg DHA/d for 3 mon. Sperm motility and the fatty acid composition of serum, seminal plasma, and sperm phospholipid were determined before and after supplementation. In serum, DHA supplementation resulted in decreases in 22:4n-6 (-30% in the 800-mg DHA group only) and total n-6 (-6 and -12% in the 400- and 800-mg DHA groups, respectively) fatty acids. Increases were noted in DHA (71 and 131% in the 400- and 800-mg DHA groups, respectively), total n-3 fatty acids (42 and 67% in the 400- and 800-mg DHA groups, respectively), and the n-3/n-6 ratio (50 and 93% in the 400- and 800-mg DHA groups, respectively). In seminal plasma, DHA supplementation resulted in a decrease in 22:4n-6 (-31% in the 800-mg DHA group only) and an increase in the ratio of n-3 to n-6 (35 and 33% in the 400- and 800-mg DHA groups, respectively). There were insignificant increases in DHA and total n-3 fatty acids. In sperm, decreases were noted in 22:4n-6 (-37 and -31% in the 400- and 800-mg DHA groups, respectively). There were no other changes. There was no effect of DHA supplementation on sperm motility. The results show that dietary DHA supplementation results in increased serum--and possibly seminal plasma--phospholipid DHA levels, without affecting the incorporation of DHA into the spermatozoa phospholipid in asthenozoospermic men. This inability of DHA to be incorporated into sperm phospholipid is most likely responsible for the observed lack of effect of DHA supplementation on sperm motility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".