MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929616584 · doi:10.21037/tau.2019.01.16

Can serum 17-hydroxyprogesterone and insulin-like factor 3 be used as a marker for evaluation of intratesticular testosterone?

2019· review· en· W2929616584 on OpenAlexaff
Ashaka Patel, Premal Patel, Joshua Bitran, Ranjith Ramasamy

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Andrology and Urology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)BiomarkerInfertilityInternal medicineEndocrinologyHormoneMedicineSpermatogenesisBiologyBiochemistryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serum testosterone values vary considerably with little correlation to intratesticular testosterone (ITT). ITT is approximately ~100 times that of serum testosterone and is critical for spermatogenesis. Unfortunately, the only method to accurately measure ITT is invasive testicular aspiration and therefore is not performed routinely. The identification of a serum biomarker for ITT would allow serial monitoring during hormonal manipulation and the ability to assess the effectiveness of a male contraceptive agent. Prior studies have evaluated several serum biomarkers for their ability to accurately reflect ITT with data supporting 17-hydroxyprogesterone (17-OHP) and insulin-like factor 3 (INSL3) as a potential marker. Because evaluation of serum 17-OHP is readily available through commercial laboratories, in this review, we present the evidence for 17-OHP and how it can play a pivotal role in the management of male 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Andrology and UrologySame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207