Sperm DNA integrity in adult survivors of paediatric leukemia and lymphoma: A pilot study on the impact of age and type of treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are more likely than siblings to report low sperm count and to use assisted reproductive technologies. Yet, it is still unclear if the sperm produced many years after remission of cancer display DNA and chromatin damage linked to male infertility and poor embryo development. As well, the importance of the age at diagnosis in relation to puberty is poorly understood. In this pilot study, we compared reproductive parameters and sperm damage from adult survivors of childhood leukemia and lymphoma, sub-divided into those diagnosed before or after puberty, to men with no history of cancer. Our data indicate that CCS, independently of the age of diagnosis, have a high risk of low sperm count and when sperm are present, chances of DNA and chromatin abnormalities appear similar to those seen in the general population. Exposure to alkylating agents is correlated with low sperm count whereas exposure to anthracyclines, and doxorubicin in particular, could have long-term consequences on sperm integrity. This study highlights the need for further research on fertility among male CCS and the importance of informing families about the potential long-term impact of chemotherapy on male fertility regardless of age at diagnosis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".