MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154390696 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.060218

Sperm DNA damage: clinical significance in the era of assisted reproduction

2006· review· en· W2154390696 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpermDNA damageAndrologyAssisted reproductive technologyBiologyReproductive technologyReproductionSperm qualityDNABioinformaticsMedicineInfertilityGeneticsCryopreservationEmbryoPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests that damage to human sperm DNA might adversely affect reproductive outcomes and that the spermatozoa of infertile men possess substantially more sperm DNA damage than do the spermatozoa of fertile men. This is particularly relevant in an era where advanced forms of assisted reproductive technologies are commonly used (technologies that often bypass the barriers to natural selection), because there is some uncertainty regarding the safety of using DNA-damaged spermatozoa. In this review, we outline our current understanding of how sperm DNA is organized, what causes sperm DNA damage, what impact this damage may have on reproductive capacity and whether tests of sperm DNA damage are clinically useful.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.299 · 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