MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285043425 · doi:10.18502/jri.v23i3.10011

Alterations in Human Semen After Infection with SARS-CoV-2: A Meta-analysis

2022· article· en· W4285043425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marta Klepinowska, Tomasz Klepinowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reproduction & Infertility · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemenSpermSemen analysisMedicineSperm motilityMeta-analysisAndrologyInternal medicineBiologyInfertilityPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The purpose of the current study was to assess pooled prevalence (PP) of SARS-CoV-2 in semen and pooled estimates including weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) of semen characteristics in infected cases as compared with healthy controls. Methods: Major databases were searched by two authors. SARS-CoV-2-positive cases were assigned to the exposed arm (group A), whereas the controls to the unex-posed (group B). Risk of bias was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and PRISMA guidelines were followed. Random-effects model was employed for analyzing the heterogeneity and fixed-effects model for homogeneity of studies. Results: Of 170 studies, 14 studies were eligible involving 507 subjects (316 in group A, 191 in group B). The risk of bias was the highest for "comparability" domain. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in only two studies among 7 subjects (PP= 2.10%, 95%CI 0.58-4.42). There was a significant decrease in sperm concentration (WMD= -15.29, 95%CI -24.70 - -5.88) and total sperm in ejaculate (WMD= -47.58, 95%CI -86.40 - -8.75) in group A. The effect of COVID-19 upon progressive motility, ejaculate volume, and leukocyte presence in semen was not significant. Conclusion: Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen among the infected cases is low. Sexual transmission through semen is improbable and of little concern for public health. Sperm concentration and total sperm in ejaculate are significantly reduced as compared with controls. Due to limited information of the current research, longer follow-up is needed to identify delayed or progressive impact.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reproduction & InfertilitySame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207