ArticleAndrology2026
The Ticking Clock: Differential Time-Dependent Deterioration Between Washed and Thawed Sperm.
Article in Andrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCryopreservation is widely used in assisted reproductive technologies. While fresh sperm undergoes gradual time-dependent deterioration, it remains unclear whether thawed sperm exhibits a more accelerated decline.
objectivesTo directly compare the rate of deterioration in sperm motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation between fresh washed and thawed sperm samples over time. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study included semen samples from 50 males. Samples were split into two groups: Washed (freshly washed sperm) and Thawed (washed, cryopreserved for at least 2 weeks, and thawed). Sperm parameters, including motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation index (DFI), were assessed immediately after processing (Time 1) and again after 75 min incubation at room temperature (Time 2). Additionally, control experiments tested whether cryoprotectant exposure alone could account for deterioration by comparing washed samples incubated with washing versus freezing medium (10 patient samples), and by assessing post-thaw washing (10 donor samples).
resultsTotal sperm motility declined significantly more in thawed samples (29 ± 16%) compared to fresh washed samples (17 ± 9%, p < 0.0001). Vitality similarly deteriorated more in thawed samples (21 ± 14%) versus fresh washed samples (7 ± 5%, p < 0.0001). DNA fragmentation increased significantly only in thawed samples (p = 0.0331), reaching clinically critical levels (mean DFI 34 ± 13% at Time 2), compared to fresh samples which remained within normal range (12 ± 5%). Motility grade transitions differed markedly, with thawed samples showing direct transitions from Grade A motility to immotility, unlike fresh washed samples, which transitioned gradually from Grade A to Grade B. In additional control experiments, cryoprotectant exposure alone did not induce deterioration, and post-thaw washing did not improve metrics. DISCUSSION: Thawed sperm exhibited accelerated deterioration across all measured parameters, highlighting cumulative stress from cryopreservation. The rapid decline underscores the need to minimize the interval between thawing and insemination.
conclusionThawed spermatozoa demonstrate significantly greater susceptibility to time-dependent deterioration compared to fresh washed samples, advocating for immediate use post-thaw to optimize reproductive outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.