Faculty Opinions recommendation of The incidence and effect of bacteriospermia and elevated seminal leukocytes on semen parameters.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of bacteriospermia and elevated seminal leukocytes (ESL) in a subfertile male population and correlate these results with semen parameters.DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.SETTING: Canadian tertiary-level male infertility clinic and university-affiliated andrology and microbiology laboratories.PATIENT(S): Four thousand nine hundred thirty-five nonazoospermic subfertile men.INTERVENTION(S): Analysis and concurrent culture of 7,852 semen samples.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Incidence of bacteriospermia and ESL and comparison of semen parameters between these groups.RESULT(S): The rate of bacteriospermia was 15% (22 species), and the rate of ESL was 19%, with no statistical correlation between these groups. Bacteriospermic patients (without ESL) had a statistically significant deterioration in DNA fragmentation index (DFI) only, compared with patients without bacteriospermia and ESL (24.1 vs. 21.8%). ESL alone was associated with a statistically significant deterioration in sperm concentration (20.6 vs. 55.3 × 10(6)/mL), motility (21.8 vs. 26.9%), normal morphology (12.3 vs. 17.4%), and DFI (26.5 vs. 21.8%), with no additional deterioration identified with bacteriospermia.CONCLUSION(S): Bacteriospermia and ESL were prevalent, but not statistically associated, in subfertile men. Bacteriospermia alone was associated with an increase in DFI only, but the presence of ESL was the dominant factor associated with deterioration in semen parameters.Copyright © 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. PMID: 22341372
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.224 | 0.109 |
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".