MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387529026 · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16865-4

Prevalence of depression in infertile men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4387529026 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Meta-analysisCochrane LibraryChecklistPublication biasSystematic reviewMental healthAnxietyEpidemiologyBiostatisticsClinical psychologyMEDLINEPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Generally, infertile men hide their depression, which can threaten their health and lower their quality of life. Given the role of depression and its impact on people's health, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in infertile men. Methods This research is a systematic review and meta-analysis based on preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Using the keywords of "Depression", "Emotional Depression", "Infertility", "Prevalence", and "Epidemiology", all English language articles were searched in international databases (PubMed, Cochran library, Web of sciences, Scopus, Embase, PsyINFO, and Google scholar) by two reviewers independently and without considering the time limit until September 2022. Title, abstract, full text and quality of each study were evaluated by two reviewers independently using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale checklist. The results were analyzed using programming language and R software, and I 2 test and Egger's Test were used to check heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively. Results Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic part of this study; and 8 different measurement tools were used to identify depression. Then, based on the possibility of meta-analysis, 18 studies were included in 4 subgroups. Given the heterogeneity of the articles, random effect model was used. The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men was 18.30%. The lowest and highest overall prevalence of depression in men was reported to be 14.04% and 23.63% in the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZDS) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) tools, respectively. The overall prevalence of depression among infertile men was reported to be 18.55% and 16.75% using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) tools, respectively. Conclusion Based on the findings of this study, the significant prevalence of depression in infertile men requires a specific attention and planning. The study revealed varying degrees of depression among infertile men, emphasizing the importance of assessing their mental health, specifically in terms of depression, during infertility treatments as a hidden variable. It is strongly recommended to develop training programs for health service providers to effectively utilize diagnostic tools in this particular field.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.344
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.130 · 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