Aneuploid spermatozoa in infertile men: Teratozoospermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We and others have demonstrated that infertile men who are candidates for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have an increased frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in their sperm. Reports based on prenatal diagnosis of ICSI pregnancies have confirmed the increased frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in offspring. Most studies to date have lumped various types of infertility together. However, it is quite likely that some subsets of infertility have an increased risk of sperm chromosomal abnormalities whereas others do not. We have studied nine men with severe teratozoospermia (WHO, 1992 criteria, 0-13% morphologically normal forms) by multicolour fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) analysis to determine if they have an increased frequency of disomy for chromosomes 13, 21, XX, YY, and XY, as well as diploidy. All of the men also had aesthenozoospermia (< 50% forward progression) but none of the men had oligozoospermia (<20 x 10(6) sperm/ml). The patients ranged in age from 20 to 49 years (mean 33.2 years) in comparison to 18 normal control donors who were 23 to 58 years (mean 35.6 years). The control donors had normal semen parameters and no history of infertility. A total of 180,566 sperm were scored in the teratozoospermic men with a minimum of 10,000 sperm analyzed/donor/chromosome probe. There was a significant increase in the frequency of disomy in teratozoospermic men compared to controls for chromosomes 13 (.23 vs.13%), XX (.13 vs.05%), and XY (.50 vs.30%) (P <.0001, 2-tailed Z statistic). This study indicates that men with teratozoospermia and aesthenozoospermia but with normal concentrations of sperm have a significantly increased frequency of sperm chromosomal 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".