MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391590343 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.088

(092) Racial/ethnic Differences in Semen Parameters and Male Reproductive Hormones in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4391590343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hojat Dehghanbanadaki, B Kim, Kiarad Fendereski, JM Ramsay, JJ Horns, Masaya Jimbo, KX Gross, AW Pastuszak, JM Hotaling

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemen qualityMeta-analysisDemographySemenTestosterone (patch)Semen analysisConfidence intervalEthnic groupHormoneMedicinePopulationSpermGynecologyPhysiologyInternal medicineBiologyAndrologyInfertilityPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Semen quality and reproductive hormones are key indicators of male fertility potential, but studies have reported inconsistent results on racial/ethnic differences in these factors in the United States. Objective To perform a meta-analysis evaluating pooled differences in semen analysis parameters and male reproductive hormones across racial/ethnic groups in the United States through a systematic literature search. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched up to December 17, 2022, with no language limitation. All studies on racial/ethnic variations in semen parameters and male reproductive hormones among the general population of the United States were included in this meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) between races/ethnicities were pooled using the random-effects model. Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used for risk of bias assessment. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 index. Results Our search yielded 731 articles. After screening, 9 studies were included. These studies had a low risk of bias (NOS ≥ 7) and involved a total of 7,641 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant differences between White and Black men in the percent of total motility (p-value=0.513; I2=99.76%), total testosterone (p-value=0.272; I2=99.79%), free testosterone (p-value=0.220; I2=99.78%), and estradiol (p-value=0.876; I2=96.90%). However, higher sperm concentration (SMD=3.64; 95%CI: 0.18, 7.09; p-value=0.039; I2=99.53%) and total sperm count (SMD=6.04; 95%CI: 0.09, 11.99; p-value=0.046, I2=99.68%) were estimated for White men compared to Black men. Additionally, higher sperm concentration (SMD=1.39; 95%CI: 0.56, 2.23; p-value=0.001, I2=92.06%) and total motility (SMD=3.06; 95%CI: 0.09, 6.02; p-value=0.043, I2=99.14%) were estimated for Hispanic men compared to non-Hispanic men, with no differences in total sperm count (p-value=0.579, I2=97.79%) or total testosterone (p-value=0.078, I2=95.95%) (Figure 1). Conclusions This meta-analysis demonstrated reductions in semen analysis parameters, especially sperm concentration, for Black and non-Hispanic men relative to White and Hispanic men in the United States. 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.030
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207