The Role of Antioxidants in Male Fertility: A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms and Clinical Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidative stress is a significant factor in male infertility, with increasing evidence evaluating the role of antioxidants in mitigating its detrimental effects on sperm function and quality. This review examines the mechanisms by which reactive oxygen species (ROS) impact male reproductive health. This article synthesizes the different mechanisms at play and highlights key clinical studies published in the literature that contribute to our understanding of antioxidants to treat male infertility. These studies suggest that supplementation with specific antioxidants may improve sperm parameters and increase fertility outcomes, although results vary depending on dosage, duration, and individual health conditions. Despite promising findings, there are inconsistencies across study methodologies and a lack of standardized treatment protocols, which underscore the need for more rigorous clinical trials. Antioxidant supplementation has the potential to serve as a supportive treatment for male infertility, but it should be approached cautiously and appropriately by carefully selecting patients who are deficient in the administered antioxidants. There is a need to better evaluate the long-term impact on reproductive outcomes and determine the optimal supplementation strategies and patient profiles that would benefit most from supplementation regimens.
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".