MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353051273 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14776

A systematic review of the effect of COVID-19 on semen parameters

2023· review· en· W4353051273 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiucheng Lan, Meijing Wang, Xujun Yu, Dong Liang, Junjun Li, Degui Chang, Fang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChengdu UniversityJiangxi University of Traditional Chinese MedicineChengdu University of Traditional Chinese MedicineNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan ProvinceJiangsu Development and Reform Commission
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Semen2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicMedicineVirologyInternal medicineAndrologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives: Since the outbreak of COVID-19, more and more studies have proved that it has an impact on the male reproductive system. The purpose of this article is to investigate the effects of COVID-19 on male semen parameters, further analyze the incidence and risk factors of diseases related to semen parameters, and put forward to corresponding preventive measures. Methods: Retrieved from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinicaltrails, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Database and VIP to collect research on the effects of COVID-19 on the male reproductive system. The literature search was conducted until January 2022. In strict accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers independently screened the literature and comprehensively analyzed five cohort studies on the impact of COVID-19 on male reproductive system. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included cohort studies, and Revman 5.4.1 was applied for statistical analysis. Results: Semen volume (RR = -0.10; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.26; P = 0.60), there was no significant difference between the test group and the control group; Sperm count (RR = -45.28; 95% CI: 66.38, 24.19; P = 0.0001), the sperm count of the COVID-19 test group was lower than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant; Sperm concentration (RR = -15.65 × 106; 95%CI: 31.52 × 106, 0.21 × 106; P = 0.05), there was no significant difference between the test group and the control group; progressive sperm motility (RR = 4.31; 95% CI: 4.62, 13.24; P = 0.34), there was no effect on progressive sperm motility in the COVID-19 test group compared with the control group. Conclusions: COVID-19 can reduce semen quality and affect male fertility. However, due to the limitations of this study, this conclusion needs to be further verified by large-sample, high-quality prospective cohort studies on the long-term effects of COVID-19 on male reproductive function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207