Seminal hyperviscosity is associated with poor outcome of controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination: a prospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between seminal hyperviscosity and pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination (IUI). METHODS: Patients were enrolled in the study between October 2002 and December 2003 at the Toronto Centre for Advanced Reproductive Technology. This was a prospective trial that included 37 infertile couples with abnormal seminal viscosity who underwent 57 insemination cycles as treatment for infertility (group I) and 37 couples undergoing 51 IUI cycles during the same time period, with normal semen viscosity, who served as controls (group II). Cycles were stimulated using either gonadotropin (FSH) only or FSH combined with an aromatase inhibitor, and raw semen processed for intrauterine insemination using swim-up or density gradient. Results-The mean number (+/-SD) of IUI cycles was 1.93 +/- 1.42 per patient (range 1 to 7 cycles) in group I and 2.4 +/- 1.05 (range 1 to 4) in group II. The overall pregnancy rate (PR) was 14% (8/57) and 11.8% (6/51) per cycle, and 21.6% (8/37) and 16.2% (6/37) per patient in group I and in group II, respectively. Among patients where the male had seminal hyperviscosity, five (62.5%) pregnancies miscarried in the first trimester; there was no miscarriage in the control group. CONCLUSION: The high miscarriage rate in couples with semen hyperviscosity may be attributed to biophysical alterations or chemical changes of the ejaculate that could impact sperm quality despite normal sperm parameters on semen analysis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".