Toxicants and human sperm chromatin integrity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integrity of the paternal genome is essential as the spermatozoon can bring genetic damage into the oocyte at fertilization and contribute to the development of abnormal pregnancy outcome. During the past two decades, many assays have been developed to measure sperm DNA strand breaks, chromatin structure and compaction and assess the proteins associated with the DNA, as well as epigenetic modifications. Using these assays, it has been shown that exposure to physical agents or chemicals, including therapeutic drugs and environmental toxicants, can affect the integrity of sperm chromatin, inducing structural, genetic and/or epigenetic abnormalities. The mechanisms by which such damage is triggered are still largely unresolved and the susceptibility of each individual will depend on their genetic background, lifestyle and exposure to various insults. Depending on the nature of the chemicals, they may directly target the DNA, induce an oxidative stress, or modify the epigenetic elements. The significance of measuring the sperm chromatin integrity comes from the fact that this end-point correlates well with the low IVF and ICSI outcomes, and idiopathic infertility. Nevertheless, it is hard to establish a direct link between the paternal sperm chromatin integrity and the health of the future generations. Thus, it seems essential to undertake studies that will resolve the impact of chemical and environmental factors on chromatin structure and epigenetic components of human spermatozoa and to elucidate what sperm nuclear end-points are predictors of the quality of progeny outcome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".