Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paternal reproductive health is highly sensitive to the physical and chemical environment. Today’s population is exposed to widespread environmental contaminants and the number of males that are overweight and obese is rising at an alarming rate [1]. Recent estimates indicate that between 47% and 58% of men in Canada are overweight [2], and in the USA, 71% of adult males are considered overweight or obese [1]. Coinciding with higher exposure to environmental chemicals and expanding waistlines is the reported, albeit controversial, global decline in male fertility [3–6]. Moreover, exposure to environmental toxicants such as endocrine-disrupting compounds has been linked to an increased incidence of infertility, hypospadias, and testicular cancer [7,8]. What if the reproductive defects associated with exposure to environmental toxicants were compounded by a high body mass index? If this is the case and if the human population continues to follow the current trend of increasing body weight and further exposure to chemical contaminants, we will be facing greater risks of infertility. In a thought-provoking study in this issue of Biology of Reproduction, Ghanayem and colleagues [9] address the question as to whether obesity alters susceptibility to the environmental chemical, acrylamide, a known reproductive toxicant. This report is one of the first to probe the combined effects of physical status with toxicant exposure. Strikingly, their results indicate that the negative consequences of acrylamide exposure on male fertility parameters are enhanced by an obese physiological condition (Fig. 1).
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".