To establish a system for evaluation of semen quality in fertile men by factor analysis (FA).
Methods
The FA method was used to analyze five sperm test indicators for fertile men (sperm pH, sperm motility, sperm progressive motility, semen density, and total sperm number) to determine the evaluation standard of semen quality. Pearson analysis was adopted for correlation testing.
Results
The comprehensive score formula for semen quality of normal fertile men was as follows: comprehensive score of semen quality = (0.38272 F(1) + 0.36359 F(2) + 0.20018 F (3))/94.699. Across the whole fertile population, semen quality was found to be correlated with abstinence period, age of first spermatorrhea, and frequency of intercourse. Smoking, drinking, and place of residence were correlated with semen quality in the high semen quality population. In the population with medium semen quality, only the abstinence period was associated with semen quality.
Conclusion
It is feasible to evaluate the semen quality of fertile men using the FA method. The comprehensive indicators of semen volume, sperm motility, and semen pH can be used as evaluative measures. Across the whole fertile population, the abstinence period and age of first spermatorrhea were correlated with semen quality. In the high semen quality population, smoking and drinking were negatively correlated with semen quality, and participants living in rural areas had better semen quality.
semen quality fertile men, sperm motility factor analysis, semen density evaluation, sperm progressive motility assessment, male fertility parameters, semen pH sperm quality, total sperm number fertile, factor analysis semen evaluation, sperm test indicators, reproductive potential semen
PMID 35273518 35273518 DOI 10.3389/fphys.2022.813591 10.3389/fphys.2022.813591 Wang et al. 2022, Wang 2022
Cite this article
Wang, N., Gu, H., Gao, Y., Li, X., Yu, G., Lv, F., Shi, C., Wang, S., Song, M., & Zhang, S. (2022). Study on Influencing Factors of Semen Quality in Fertile Men. Frontiers in physiology, 13, 813591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.813591
Wang N, Gu H, Gao Y, Li X, Yu G, Lv F, et al. Study on Influencing Factors of Semen Quality in Fertile Men. Front Physiol. 2022;13:813591. doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.813591
Wang, N., et al. "Study on Influencing Factors of Semen Quality in Fertile Men." Frontiers in physiology, vol. 13, 2022, pp. 813591.
Related articles
Measurement and Statistics · Research Tooling and Reproducibility
To determine the variability in the recognition of normal sperm and various sperm defects using the strict criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (5th edition, 2010). Sperm morphologic assessment by three experienced evaluators. Image processing laboratory and reproduction research institute. PATIENT(S): Semen donors from a sperm bank. INTERVENTION(S): The morphology of 5,296 sperm was evaluated using statistical analyses of variability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion and coefficients of variation (CVs) of normal sperm, defects of specific parts, and the categories of defects were measured. The degree of agreement between any two of the three evaluators was calculated. The multiple anomalies index, teratozoospermia index, sperm deformity index, and the CVs were also measured. RESULT(S): The CVs of normal sperm, multiple anomalies index, teratozoospermia index, and sperm deformity index were 4.80%, 4.14%, 5.75%, and 6.81%, respectively. A broader range (4.80%-132.97%) of CVs was observed for the recognition of various defects. The coefficients of the degree of agreement concerning specific morphologic parts of sperm varied (0.387-0.607), with lower relative values for the head and mid-piece than for the tail and cytoplasm. CONCLUSION(S): The sperm head is more difficult to evaluate than the other parts using the criteria recommended by the World Health Organization in 2010. The degree of agreement concerning specific parts and various defects varied in broad ranges. A stricter definition for each defect is needed.
Lifshitz K et al., 2026·International urology and nephrology·
Open Access
Paternity rates among testicular cancer survivors are reduced. The patient journey, from fertility preservation at diagnosis to attempted paternity or use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), contains two key gaps in the literature. While baseline semen impairment is well recognized, the relationship between disease stage, tumor pathology, and semen quality remains inconsistent. In addition, prior studies have largely excluded sex-cord stromal tumors, lacked healthy comparators, and rarely performed pathology-specific analyses within the same clinical stage. Reported paternity rates vary widely (6-21%), yet real-world data on ART utilization and live-birth outcomes remain limited. We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2017-2023) at a single tertiary academic referral center within a healthcare system that provided full coverage for sperm cryopreservation for 5 years and ART for up to 2 live births. Primary outcomes included baseline semen parameters by tumor histology and clinical stage, pathology-specific comparisons within each stage, and post-treatment utilization of cryopreserved sperm. Secondary outcomes were ART pregnancy and live-birth rates. The semen parameters were compared with those of healthy sperm donor candidates. The cohort included 126 men (mean age 36.6 ± 10.9 years; 83 seminoma, 35 non-seminoma, 8 sex-cord stromal tumors). Compared with 100 healthy donor candidates, testicular cancer patients demonstrated significantly impaired baseline semen quality across all parameters except volume (all p ≤ 0.01). Post-thaw semen quality was further reduced, with lower motility rates (17.5% vs 44.1%) and total motile counts (1.1 vs 7.8 million), highlighting greater motility and total motile count loss following cryopreservation. Sex-cord stromal tumors exhibited the poorest semen parameters. Semen quality did not differ by stage overall; pathology-specific differences were observed only in stage II disease, favoring non-seminoma tumors (p ≤ 0.05). Overall, 69% (n = 91) elected sperm cryopreservation. Among those, the median number of vials initially frozen was 15 (IQR 10-18), with a mean of 11.6 ± 4.3 vials per patient (range 1-18). During a median follow-up of 5.3 years (IQR: 3.9-6.8), only 8% (n = 7) used their vials for ART, undergoing a median (IQR) of 2.5 (1-4) cycles per couple (15 cycles recorded among 6 of 7 couples; cycle count missing for one couple), resulting in 12 pregnancies and an overall live-birth rate of 67%: 2/2, 100%, 6/10, 60%. Testicular cancer significantly impairs semen quality, with important variation by tumor pathology rather than stage. These findings underscore the need for accurate counseling: fertility preservation often enables future use primarily through IVF and supports banking multiple vials to mitigate freeze-thaw losses.
Declining fertility, overlooked mental health, and reduced life expectancy underscore the urgent need for renewed attention to men's health. A semen analysis, traditionally used to assess fertility, holds untapped potential as a tool for promoting lifestyle changes and preventing chronic diseases in men. Spermatogenesis is highly sensitive to environmental and lifestyle factors and can be an early indicator of overall health. Disruptions in this process can signal underlying systemic issues and predict long-term health risks, including cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders. An increasing number of men seek to engage in preconception care, as fertility is closely tied to a man's sense of masculinity, identity and aspirations for fatherhood. In this context, a semen analysis can be a powerful motivator to encourage healthy behaviours and proactive health management. By incorporating semen analysis into primary care, health care providers can leverage men's desire for fatherhood as an entry point to discuss broader health concerns, such as mental well-being, nutrition and physical activity. This approach would address immediate reproductive health, and also promote long-term wellness, helping to reduce the burden of chronic disease in men.
Nedelcu S et al., 2024·Hum Reprod Open·
Open Access
Can semen parameters predict long-term health outcomes in men? There is a lack of evidence to suggest a higher risk of comorbidities in men with poor semen concentration. Male infertility has been long associated with a higher mortality risk and possibly higher chance of developing comorbidities but there has been less focus on semen analysis as a potential predictive factor. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM databases from inception to December 2023. MESH term strategy: heading 1 ('OR', semen analysis, sperm count, sperm parameter*, male infertility, azoospermia, aspermia, oligospermia, teratozoospermia, asthenozoospermia) 'AND' heading 2 ('OR', morbidity, mortality, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, death, hypertension, stroke, long-term health). We included all studies that analyzed the risk of mortality and/or future development of comorbidities in men with at least one semen analysis. Case series and reviews were excluded. A narrative synthesis was done for all studies and meta-analysis where possible. Odds ratio (ORs) (95% CI, P-value) were calculated for all men with one suboptimal semen parameter and associated with the risk of a particular outcome. The risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. MAIN Twenty-one studies were finally included. There was either a high or unclear risk of bias in all studies. The results only allowed for meta-analysis on categories of sperm concentration. We found a 2-fold increase in mortality risk in azoospermic men compared to oligospermic (OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.29-2.96) and normozoospermic (OR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.23-3.25) groups, but not in oligospermic compared to normozoospermic (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.52-2.09). There was no difference in risk of cardiovascular disease in any of the sperm concentration groups (azoospermic-oligospermic OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.74-1.20, azoospermic-normozoospermic OR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.71-1.75, and oligospermic-normozoospermic OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.80-1.55). OR for diabetes in azoospermic men was higher only compared to oligospermic (OR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01). The risk of all-site cancer was higher in azoospermic men compared to oligospermic (OR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01) and normozoospermic (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.20-3.96). Only azoospermic men might be at higher risk of testicular cancer when compared to men with normal sperm concentration (OR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.12-2.89). LIMITATIONS Although our pooled analysis shows an increased risk of mortality and all-site cancer risk in azoospermic men, the results show a lack of evidence to suggest a higher risk of comorbidities in men with poor semen concentration. Given the limited available data, the nature of the studies, and the high risk of bias, the results should be interpreted with caution. There is not enough data to confirm the usability of semen analysis as a predictor of poor long-term health in men, especially within the general population. No funding was obtained for this study. A.M. has received funding from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Pharmasure, and Cook Medical to attend medical conferences; has been a participant in an advisory board for Ferring; and has given an invited lecture for a Merck Serono advisory board. S.N. has received funding for medical conference attendance from Ferring and Cook Medical. PROSPERO No. CRD42024507563.