MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334014506 · doi:10.1038/srep23553

Human sperm rheotaxis: a passive physical process

2016· article· en· W2334014506 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsPacific Centre for Reproductive MedicineUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSpermAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A long-standing question in natural reproduction is how mammalian sperm navigate inside female reproductive tract and finally reach the egg cell, or oocyte. Recently, fluid flow was proposed as a long-range guidance cue for sperm navigation. Coitus induces fluid flow from oviduct to uterus, and sperm align themselves against the flow direction and swim upstream, a phenomenon termed rheotaxis. Whether sperm rheotaxis is a passive process dominated by fluid mechanics, or sperm actively sense and adapt to fluid flow remains controversial. Here we report the first quantitative study of sperm flagellar motion during human sperm rheotaxis and provide direct evidence indicating that sperm rheotaxis is a passive process. Experimental results show that there is no significant difference in flagellar beating amplitude and asymmetry between rheotaxis-turning sperm and those sperm swimming freely in the absence of fluid flow. Additionally, fluorescence image tracking shows no Ca(2+) influx during sperm rheotaxis turning, further suggesting there is no active signal transduction during human sperm rheotaxis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · 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