Semen quality in a residential, geographic and age representative sample of healthy Chinese men
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population-based study of semen quality is rare in literature. METHODS: Healthy men aged 20-60 years from six Chinese provinces were invited to participate in the study between December 2000 and November 2002. Posters were distributed in the participating counties to enroll 200 subjects from each province. Medians, percentiles, and proportions below lower threshold of the WHO criteria for semen parameters were calculated. Generalized linear models were used to examine the determinants of semen quality. RESULTS: Semen samples from 1191 healthy Chinese men were collected and analysed. The medians (5th and 95th percentiles) were 2.3 ml (1.0-4.5) for semen volume, 65 x 10(6)/ml (20-150) for semen concentration, 154 x 10(6)/ejection (29-421) for sperm count, 19% (5-32) for rapid progressive motility, 46% (29-66) for progressive motility, 67% (47-81) for total motile spermatozoa, 70% (48-88) for sperm viability and 39% (23-76) for normal morphology. Many healthy Chinese men had semen parameter values below the lower threshold of the WHO criteria. Region, age, abstinence duration and season were important determinants of semen quality. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese men have lower values of semen parameters according to WHO standard, and a lower threshold for normal semen parameters for Chinese men should be considered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it