Pesticide Exposures Induce Male-Mediated Reproductive Toxicity: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infertility remains a continuing globally problem wherever couples worldwide were infertile as much as 42 million in 1990 and keep projecting to 48.5 million in 2010. Male-mediated infertility becomes one of the numerous concerns due to pesticide especially sperm quality as revealed with raising number of animal and human studies in latter-day among researchers. Pesticides have been used since the early days as pest control in agriculture, as vector controls in malaria and dengue as well as subject to much regulation. The reproductive system might be affected with some negative effects from pesticides that lead to interference with the male hormonal function. Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content in the sperm cell membrane makes it become highly susceptible towards reactive oxygen species (ROS), thus leading to sperm damage. Besides known genetic and environmental factors, research during the last two decades has highlight on several mechanisms and their association with male infertility. The male germ line undergoes extensive epigenetic modifications throughout fetal to adult life hence vulnerable to environmental factors that may influence fertility. The present literature will help in understanding the mechanisms of pesticide in inducing male-mediated reproductive toxicity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".