MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309534020 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-24568-w

Assessing spermatozoal small ribonucleic acids and their relationship to blastocyst development in idiopathic infertile males

2022· article· en· W4309534020 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Hamilton, Stewart J. Russell, Karen Menezes, Sergey I. Moskovtsev, Clifford Librach

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystAndrologyBiologyGynecologyEmbryogenesisEmbryoMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Clinical testing strategies for diagnosing male factor infertility are limited. A deeper analysis of spermatozoa-derived factors could potentially diagnose some cases of ‘unexplained infertility’. Spermatozoa carry a rich and dynamic profile of small RNAs, which have demonstrated potential developmental importance and association with fertility status. We used next-generation sequencing to correlate sperm small RNA profiles of normozoospermic males (n = 54) with differing blastocyst development rates, when using young donor oocytes. While ribosomal RNAs accounted for the highest number of sequencing reads, transfer RNA fragments of tRNA Gly/GCC and tRNA Val-CAC were the most abundant sequences across all sperm samples. A total of 324 small RNAs were differentially expressed between samples with high (n = 18) and low (n = 14) blastocyst rates ( p -adj < 0.05). Ninety three miRNAs were differentially expressed between these groups ( p -adj < 0.05). Differentially expressed transfer RNA fragments included: 5'-tRF-Asp-GTC; 5'-tRF-Phe-GAA; and 3'-tRF-Ser-GCA. Differentially expressed miRNAs included: let-7f-2-5p; miR-4755-3p; and miR-92a-3p. This study provides the foundation on which to validate a clinical panel of fertility-related sperm small RNAs, as well as to pursue potential mechanisms through which they alter blastocyst development.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207