MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147753146 · doi:10.3109/19396368.2012.663233

The contribution of proteomics to understanding epididymal maturation of mammalian spermatozoa

2012· review· en· W2147753146 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Louis Dacheux, Clémence Belleannée, Benoît Guyonnet, Valérie Labas, Ana‐Paula Teixeira‐Gomes, Heath Ecroyd, Xavier Druart, Jean‐Luc Gatti, Françoise Dacheux

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Biology in Reproductive Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpididymisGameteBiologySpermProteomicsMotilityCell biologySeminiferous tubuleSperm cellSperm motilityAndrologySpermatogenesisEndocrinologyBiochemistryGeneticsSertoli cellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acquisition of the ability of the male gamete to fertilize an ovum is the result of numerous and sequential steps of differentiation of spermatozoa that occur as they transit from the testis to the end of the epididymal tubule. The post gonadal sperm modifications are mostly related to motility, egg binding, and penetration processes. As the activity of the epididymis and its luminal fluid composition are believed to be directly related to 'sperm maturation', a review on epididymal proteins is presented. Comparative studies have shown that the epididymal activities are species specific. Nevertheless, for all mammalian species studied, similarities exist in the sequential proteomic changes of the luminal composition of the epididymal tubule and proteins on the sperm surface. The potential roles of these modifications are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations112
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystems Biology in Reproductive MedicineSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207