MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160883503 · doi:10.5534/wjmh.210056

Sperm DNA Fragmentation: A Critical Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines

2021· review· en· W3160883503 on OpenAlexaff
Ashok Agarwal, Ala’a Farkouh, Neel Parekh, Armand Zini, Mohamed Arafa, Hussein Kandil, Nicholas N. Tadros, Gian Maria Busetto, Rafael F. Ambar, Sıjo J. Parekattıl, Florence Boitrelle, Hassan Sallam, Sunil Jindal, Edmund Ko, Mara Simopoulou, Hyun Jun Park, Mohammad Ali Sadighi, Ramadan Saleh, Jonathan Ramsay, Marlon Martínez, Haitham Elbardisi, Juan G. Álvarez, Giovanni M. Colpi, Jaime Gosálvez, Donald P. Evenson, Rupin Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe World Journal of Men s Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical PracticeDNA fragmentationFertilityMale infertilityInfertilityMedicineGynecologyFamily medicineBiologyGeneticsPregnancyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is implicated in male infertility and adverse reproductive outcomes. With the publication of many studies regarding the etiologies and contributors to SDF, as well as the effects of SDF, guidelines are necessary to aid clinicians in the application of SDF for male fertility evaluation. Two recent clinical practice guidelines were published by Agarwal et al and Esteves et al. In this article, we have evaluated and compared both guidelines. We have found fairly similar recommendations between the two guidelines and have also highlighted the differences between them. Finally, we have summarized and combined the best practice recommendations from both guidelines.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations66
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe World Journal of Men s HealthSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207