Geographical Differences in Male Infertility between the United States and Canada: Insights from the Andrology Research Consortium
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to compare the demographics and fertility characteristics of men presenting to reproductive urologists (RU) for evaluation in the United States (US) and Canada using data from the Andrology Research Consortium. A standardized patient questionnaire was used to prospectively evaluate men across fifteen North American male infertility practices between 2015 and 2018. Patient demographics, fertility histories, including female partner infertility testing and treatment, and referral data were assessed. Univariate analysis was used to determine geographical differences between the various patient characteristics and the geographical region. We sampled 6,462 men with a mean age of 36.6 ± 7.5 years. The average duration of infertility was significantly higher in US men (4.5 ± 7.2 years) compared to Canadian men (3.6 ± 4 years) ( p = 0.007). Significantly more men in the US were obese (63% vs. 26%, p < 0.001) compared to Canada. Intrauterine insemination use among female partners was more common in Canada (13% vs. 7%, p < 0.001) while in vitro fertilization was less common (6% vs. 9%, p = 0.01) when compared to the US. Finasteride (3% vs. 0%) and testosterone usage (4% vs. 1) were more common among US men versus Canadians, respectively. In conclusion, geographical differences exist between North American males undergoing fertility evaluation. American men are older and more obese and have a longer average duration of infertility. Potentially reversible factors contributing to male infertility are more prevalent in the US.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it