Analysis of human sperm karyotypes in testicular cancer patients before and after chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sperm karyotype analysis was performed on testicular cancer patients before and after treatment with BEP (bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin). A total of 788 sperm chromosome complements was studied, 236 before chemotherapy (CT) and 552 post-CT. There was no significant difference in the total frequency of sperm chromosomal abnormalities pre-CT (10.2%) compared to post-CT (10.7%). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the frequencies of numerical abnormalities (2.5% pre-CT vs. 2.4% post-CT) or structural abnormalities (6.4% pre-CT vs. 7.4% post-CT). The percentage of X-bearing sperm was also not significantly different before (46.3%) and after CT (50.1%). The results in cancer patients were not significantly different from those in control donors. This study corroborates results from our previous analysis of these same men using multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization for assessment of aneuploidy for chromosomes 1, 12, X, Y, and XY. Together, these two studies suggest that the sperm of men receiving BEP chemotherapy are not at increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities two or more years after treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".