Semen Parameters and Hormaone Profile of Men Investigated for Infertility at Midland Fertility Centre, Ilorin, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at comparing the semen parameters and pattern of endocrine abnormalities in patients investigated for male infertility in our fertility centre. Hormonal assays and semen analysis were carried out, from February 2008 to April 2010. Three hundred and sixteen (316) men were evaluated out of which forty-five (45) underwent hormonal assessment, because of the abnormalities in their sperm count. Sixteen (35.6%; 16 out of 45) of the subjects were azoospermic; twenty-three (23 out of 45; 51.1%) were oligospermic with sperm count less than 20 million sperm cell/ ml; and six (n=6; 13.3%) of the subjects were normospermic, with sperm count greater than 20 million sperm cell/ ml. The mean values of the hormonal assays for azoospermia were: 21.84±1.94 (luteinizing hormone), 14.14±4.4 (follicle-stimulating hormone), 23.95±17.43 (testosterone), and 15.03±2.91 for prolactin. Hormonal assays for patients having oligospermia were as follow: luteinizing hormone (LH) 12.56±3.90, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) 5.96±1.17, testosterone 10.13±2.40 and prolactin 13.42±2.43, while normospermic patients had the following hormone levels: LH: 7.72±3.90, FSH: 2.93±.74, testosterone: 17.00±3.36 and, prolactin: 12.45±2.16. We conclude that infertile men with low sperm count may not always present with abnormal hormone profiles; and, male factor, in this environment, contributes a high percentage to infertility.
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 | 0.001 | 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".