Zygotic chromosomal structural aberrations after paternal drug treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the field of male-mediated reproductive toxicology has received growing attention. It is now well-established that many drugs, chemicals, and environmental factors can harm male germ cells by inducing DNA damage. Male germ cells have extensive repair mechanisms that allow detection and repair of damaged DNA during the early phases of spermatogenesis. However, during the later phase of spermiogenesis, when the haploid spermatids undergo chromatin condensation and become transcriptionally quiescent, their ability to repair damaged DNA is lost. [1] ,[2] It is also thought that the highly compacted chromatin of the sperm can protect DNA against damage. [3] Therefore, it is expected that late spermatids will be most susceptible to DNA damaging agents. Unrepaired or misrepaired damage in the germ cells leads to the generation of spermatozoa with DNA damage that can be transmitted to the next generation. Fortunately, the maternal DNA repair machinery is capable of recognizing and repairing, at least to some degree, damaged paternal DNA after fertilization in the zygote. Therefore, the efficiency of the maternal repair machinery will greatly influence the risk of transmitting paternal DNA damage to offspring. [4].
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".