Observational retrospective study of Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes of 117 infertile men with severe short tail sperm defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is increasingly used to treat male-factor infertility when sperm parameters are not proper for intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF). Among sperm abnormalities, short tail sperm defect is a rare kind of teratozoospermia, which is a severe cause of male infertility. In this study, we evaluated the ICSI outcomes of infertile men with severely short tail sperm defect. 117 infertile men with primary infertility were included in this study. We evaluated the impact of short tail sperm defect on large ICSI series (228 cycles) outcomes. The fertilisation rate (FR) was 49.0%, the clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was 21.7%, and the delivery rate (DR) was 17.5%. The results of statistical analysis show that there is no relationship between short tail sperm defect and clinical pregnancy. According to the present study, there were patients with successful ICSI outcomes despite the severe defect in their spermatozoa flagella. Our results can be considered in two main aspects: (a) it seems that ICSI could be a proper therapy for infertile men with short-tailed sperm defect and (b) the abnormal sperm morphology (especially in sperm flagellum) is not a reliable predictor for the ICSI outcomes. In conclusion, our study suggests that ICSI should be considered as a proper treatment way for infertile men with severe short tail sperm defect and probably other sperm flagella abnormalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".