MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320159817 · doi:10.58739/jcbs/v11i3.3

Pooled sequential ejaculates for intrauterine insemination- A prospective randomized study on infertility due to oligospermia in young couples

2021· article· en· W4320159817 on OpenAlexaff
Divyanu Jain, Abha Sood, Ajay K. Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsHeritage Medical Research ClinicUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemenInfertilityOligospermiaMale infertilityInseminationSpermArtificial inseminationPregnancy rateAndrologyGynecologySemen analysisSperm washingPregnancyMedicineBiologyObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The use of pooled sequential ejaculates is a minimally-invasive, cost-effective and yet underutilized technique of increasing total motile sperm counts for intrauterine insemination (IUI) before opting for expensive and unnecessary infertility treatments. At present, no guidelines are available regarding the use of pooled sequential ejaculates for IUI in cases with very low seminal parameters; therefore, we speculated that the use of pooled sequential ejaculates for IUI in patients with male factor infertility may be an efficient technique for achieving a successful pregnancy. The aim of this study is to assess the efficiency of the pooled semen technique by comparing the outcomes of IUI using a single semen sample versus pooled sequential ejaculates in young patients with severe oligospermia. Materials and Methods: Young couples with only male factor infertility were randomly assigned single semen or pooled sequential ejaculates technique for a single cycle of IUI and analyzed. We strictly included males aged 25-30 years with sperm concentration < 6 million/mL, total motile sperm count (TMSC) < 10 million and sperm motility < 50%. The second ejaculate was obtained within two hours of the first ejaculate. Results: Pooling the sequential ejaculates significantly increased the TMSC for insemination (P<0.0001) compared with the single semen sample group. There were 5 successful pregnancies in the pooled sequential ejaculate group (pregnancy rate 33.3%, OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.04, 2.41) as compared to 1 in the single semen sample group. The receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the number of TMSC for IUI has a good predictive value for a successful pregnancy outcome in young couples with only male factor infertility (AUC = 0.86, p-value = 0.06). Conclusion: Pooled sequential ejaculates for IUI is an effective and inexpensive minimally-invasive treatment for infertility due to severe oligospermia in young couples. Keywords: Intrauterine Insemination, Male Factor Infertility, Sperm Count, Oligospermia, Ejaculate, Pregnancy

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.359 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCESSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207