MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391567835 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.286

(300) Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Seasonal Variation on Human Semen Quality in the United States

2024· article· en· W4391567835 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hojat Dehghanbanadaki, Zane Randell, Kiarad Fendereski, JM Ramsay, J Horns, KX Gross, A Pastuszak, JM Hotaling

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemenSemen qualityMeta-analysisSemen analysisDemographySeasonalityConfidence intervalBiologyAnimal scienceMedicineStatisticsMathematicsAndrologyInternal medicineInfertilityPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Different environmental exposures such as daylight hours and temperature influence spermatogenesis, which vary across seasons. However, studies on the variation of semen analysis across different seasons reported inconsistent results. Objective To investigate the seasonality of human semen parameters in the United States through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies on seasonal variation of human semen parameters in the United States from conception to December 11, 2022, without language restriction, and also scrutinized the reference list of included studies for any additional related study. We determined the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) between seasons using the random effect model in a case of substantial heterogeneity (I2 index≥50%) and the fixed-effect model in a case of low heterogeneity (I2 index<50%) in STATA version 17. The methodological quality was checked using Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Results Our search yielded 548 studies. After screening, 7 studies on 131,306 semen analyses were included for meta-analysis. All included studies had high methodological quality (NOS ≥ 7). Figure 1 shows the pooled SMD of semen parameters between seasons. Semen analysis in winter had a higher volume than those in spring (p-value=0.010; I2=4.63%). Winter had better semen quality than summer in terms of concentration (p-value=0.014; I2=0%) and total sperm count (p-value=0.044; I2=47.80%). Semen quality was also better in winter than in fall, in terms of volume (p-value=0.001; I2=0%), concentration (p-value=0.016; I2=23.68%), and total sperm count (p-value=0.022; I2=13.95%). Spring had better semen quality than summer in terms of concentration (p-value<0.001; I2=33.74%) and percent of normal morphology (p-value<0.001; I2=0%), and also had higher concentration than fall (p-value<0.001; I2=42.82%). Semen analysis in summer had a lower percentage of total motility than those in fall (p-value=0.045; I2=0%). Conclusions Semen parameters follow a seasonal pattern, with winter and spring showing better sperm quality regarding concentration and total sperm count than other seasons. Disclosure No.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.031
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207