MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138315254 · doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi028

Impact of Paternal Exposure to Chemotherapy on Offspring in the Rat

2005· review· en· W2138315254 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara F. Hales

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Monographs · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndrologyBiologyCyclophosphamideEmbryoOffspringDNA damageGerm cellGeneGene expressionInternal medicineChemotherapyGeneticsDNAPregnancyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paternal exposure to chemotherapeutics may have adverse effects on offspring. In the rat, chronic low-dose paternal exposure to the anticancer drug cyclophosphamide increased pre- and postimplantation loss and malformations. The effects of paternal drug treatment on progeny were influenced by the stage when germ cells were first exposed. Chronic cyclophosphamide treatment resulted in a dramatic decrease in the expression of stress response genes in pachytene spermatocytes and round spermatids but not in elongated spermatids; reduced gene expression may allow damage to accumulate. Exposure for 9 weeks, but not for 6, increased the incidence of aneuploidy. DNA strand breaks were maximal 3 weeks after short-term or acute treatment, during spermiogenesis. Cyclophosphamide-exposed spermatozoa imparted DNA damage to the fertilized embryo. Total RNA synthesis was higher in one-cell embryos sired by drug-treated fathers than in controls, and the expression of specific genes was altered. Thus, in the rat, paternal exposure to an anticancer drug altered germ cell quality, disrupting embryo development and dysregulating zygotic gene activation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI MonographsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207