The Impact of Radiofrequency Waves on Male Infertility: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: As the use of cellphones and other electronic devices increases, concerns about the possible effect of radiofrequency waves on health are growing. Long-term use of the cellphone may have negative effects on sperm quality. Objectives: The purpose of this research was to examine men's infertility due to the effect of radiofrequency waves. Methods: In this systematic review, language restrictions were not considered in searching the databases. Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, CINAHL, Science Direct, MEDLINE, and Scopus were used to obtain the data from them. All data were scanned from the year 2000 until 2019. Papers selected for retrieval were evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa and CONSORT scales. Results: A total of 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria were ultimately assessed. Motile sperm, sperm vitality and membrane integrity, morphology, volume, total sperm count, sperm concentration, and sperm fertility were found to be influenced by radiofrequency waves. Conclusions: The results showed that RF has detrimental effects on semen parameters and due to an increase in RF wave use currently and its role in male infertility, giving information to men about adverse complications of RF is necessary. Further studies are needed to design the less harmful devices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".