The association between serum vitamin D, fertility and semen quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A number of studies have examined the association between vitamin D, fertility and semen quality, however, findings have been inconclusive. Herein, we systematically reviewed available observational studies to elucidate the overall relationship between vitamin D, fertility and semen quality in adult population. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane's Library, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science databases were searched until December 2018 for all available studies evaluating the association between vitamin D, fertility and semen quality. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to examine the quality of each study. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies out of 1843 met our inclusion criteria and were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. Serum 25(OH)D3 was significantly higher in fertile subjects compared to infertile ones (WMD -0.63; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.21; P = 0.003). Furthermore, there was a significant association between serum 25(OH)D, sperm motility (WMD -5.84; 95% CI, -10.29 to -1.39; P = 0.01) and sperm progressive motility (WMD -5.24; 95% CI, -8.71 to -1.76; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Our findings add to the existing literature supporting the concept that nutrition, especially vitamin D, plays an important role in men's sexual health. It should be noted that because of significant heterogeneity among the included studies, caution is warranted when interpreting the results. Further well-designed prospective cohort studies and clinical trials are needed for better understanding of the relationship between vitamin D and fertility and its components.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it