Lack of association between smoking and DNA fragmentation in the spermatozoa of normal men*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male factor infertility patients can have anomalies in their sperm nuclei, displaying high levels of loosely packaged chromatin and damaged DNA. The primary objectives of this study were to compare the extent of DNA fragmentation in the spermatozoa of healthy light and heavy smokers versus non-smokers, and to investigate its correlation with concentrations of the smoking markers cotinine and cadmium. A secondary objective was to compare the concentrations of blood cadmium and serum cotinine with corresponding concentrations in seminal plasma. Ninety-seven healthy male volunteers were divided into three groups: non-smokers, light and heavy smokers. There was no difference between the three groups with respect to age, number of ejaculations per week, serum testosterone concentration, and parameters of semen analysis. The percentages of DNA fragmentation in spermatozoa were not statistically different in the heavy smokers (12.11%), light smokers (11.66%) and non-smokers (20.41%). Serum and seminal plasma concentrations of cotinine were significantly higher in heavy smokers compared with the other groups (P < 0.0001). Median values for blood cadmium concentration were higher in heavy smokers (4.50 microg/l) than in light smokers (0.20 microg/l) and non-smokers (0.20 microg/l) (P < 0.001). Cadmium concentration in seminal plasma was significantly higher in heavy smokers (0.20 microg/l) than in light smokers (0.10 microg/l) and non-smokers (0. 10 microg/l) (P < 0.05). In summary, our results indicate no association between smoking and DNA fragmentation in the spermatozoa of healthy men.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".