Is 24‐h sperm motility a useful IVF measure when male infertility is not apparent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship of 24-h sperm motility between post insemination and fertilization in vitro, in a population with no apparent semen abnormalities. A retrospective study from July 1998 to June 2000. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four hundred and seventy-one consecutive in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles for which the primary diagnosis was not male infertility (total motility count > 40 x 106) were studied. Linear regression was used to examine the general relation between 24-h sperm motility and IVF. The cohort with 0% 24-h motility was compared with all other cycles using the t-test and the chi2-test. Test quality was assessed using the positive likelihood ratio. RESULTS: Overall fertilization was 58 +/- 16%. There were 45/471 cycles (9.5%) with zero fertilization. Linear regression of percent fertilization vs. 24-h motility showed no relationship (r = 0.01). The cohort with 0% 24-h motility had a lower fertilization rate 29 +/- 19% (P = 0.05), and had a higher incidence of no fertilization 7/21 (P = 0.01). The positive likelihood ratio was 4.6. CONCLUSIONS: Zero 24-h motility indicates occult male infertility, and a positive result indicates a fair to good test. Overall there was no relationship between sperm survival at 24 h post insemination and fertilization in vitro. However, 0% 24-h sperm motility was associated with reduced fertilization
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".