Is there a relationship between sperm chromosome abnormalities and sperm morphology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review explores the relationship between sperm chromosomal constitution and morphology. With the advent of techniques for obtaining information on the chromosome complements of spermatozoa, this relationship has been studied in fertile men and in men with a high frequency of chromosomal abnormalities. Using human sperm karyotype analysis, no relationship between sperm chromosome abnormalities and morphology was found in fertile men, translocation carriers or post-radiotherapy cancer patients. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis has not generally revealed a specific association between morphologically abnormal sperm and sperm chromosome abnormalities, but has indicated that teratozoospermia, like other forms of abnormal semen profiles (aesthenozoospermia, oligozoospermia) is associated with a modest increase in the frequency of sperm chromosome abnormalities. However, FISH studies on some infertile men and mouse strains have suggested that certain types of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa, such as macrocephalic multitailed spermatozoa, are associated with a very significantly increased frequency of aneuploidy. Thus, there may be an association between sperm morphology and aneuploidy in infertile men with specific abnormalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".