Testicular hyperthermia increases blood flow that maintains aerobic metabolism in rams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a paradigm that testicular hyperthermia fails to increase testicular blood flow and that an ensuing hypoxia impairs spermatogenesis. However, in our previous studies, decreases in normal and motile spermatozoa after testicular warming were neither prevented by concurrent hyperoxia nor replicated by hypoxia. The objective of the present study was to determine the effects of increasing testicular temperature on testicular blood flow and O2 delivery and uptake and to detect evidence of anaerobic metabolism. Under general anaesthesia, the testicular temperature of nine crossbred rams was sequentially maintained at ~33°C, 37°C and 40°C (±0.5°C; 45min per temperature). As testicular temperature increased from 33°C to 40°C there were increases in testicular blood flow (13.2±2.7 vs 17.7±3.2mLmin-1 per 100g of testes, mean±s.e.m.; P<0.05), O2 extraction (31.2±5.0 vs 47.3±3.1%; P<0.0001) and O2 consumption (0.35±0.04 vs 0.64±0.06mLmin-1 per 100g of testes; P<0.0001). There was no evidence of anaerobic metabolism, based on a lack of change in lactate, pH, HCO3- and base excess. In conclusion, these data challenge the paradigm regarding scrotal-testicular thermoregulation, as acute testicular hyperthermia increased blood flow and tended to increase O2 delivery and uptake, with no indication of hypoxia or anaerobic metabolism.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".