MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401499143 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.2956

Trends Of Male Infertility: Etiopathogenesis & Diagnostics

2023· article· en· W4401499143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anurag Kumar Pandey, Mamta Tiwari, Arun Kumar Dwivedi, Rahul Sharma, Ajeet Kumar Yadav

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLivestock Management and Performance Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfertilityMale infertilityMedicineGynecologyBiologyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infertility is an ominous problem worldwide. On average, about 10% of all couples face difficulty in starting a family and this creates a feeling of great personal failure, particularly in India where religious and socio-economic traditions have made it almost imperative for everyone to have children. A significant association had been found between impaired semen quality including sperm count, motility and morphology. In this review, the various contributory etiological factors i.e., pre-testicular, post-testicular or directly at the testicular level along with the factors that could influence each of the partners. Their age, medications, surgical history, systemic diseases, endocrine factors, exposure to environmental toxins, pesticides, industrial chemicals, genetic problems, Diet, Stress, Alcohol and modern lifestyle have been discussed which have a serious impact on male infertility. The key purpose of this review article is to evaluate certain causative factors of infertility and is to identify contributions to the pathogenesis of male infertility and ultimately offer better strategies for making the diagnosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.070 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicLivestock Management and Performance ImprovementFrench-language works237,207