The effect of astaxanthin on human sperm parameters after cryopreservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to examine the protective efficacy of astaxanthin (ASTA) against the damage that occurs during sperm cryopreservation. METHODS: This experimental study was carried out on waste semen samples of 30 normozoospermic individuals who applied for semen analysis. Semen samples were divided into four equal volumes and 0 μM (control group), 50 μM, 100 μM, and 500 μM ASTA were added to each group. All groups were stored frozen in a liquid nitrogen tank. Semen samples were removed from liquid nitrogen after 72 hours and were thawed. Motility evaluation of sperm was performed. In addition, sperm was stained with acidic aniline blue to detect DNA chromatin condensation. RESULTS: The highest motility loss was found in the control group and the least motility loss was in the 100 μM ASTA group. When examined in terms of sperm chromatin condensation, condensed sperm count was higher in the 100 μM ASTA group than in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: It has been observed that ASTA added to the cryoprotectant substance during sperm cryopreservation positively affects sperm motility and reduces the number of decondensed sperm.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".