3.1. Scientific terminology (PubMed)
Terms related to the field of coronavirus and fertility were divided by experts into thematic categories [15]. Eleven thematic categories were identified: Genetics and molecular biology, COVID and other diseases, Coronavirus, Infertility (without gender), Female reproductive health (FRH), Male reproductive health (MRH), COVID vaccination, Research objects, Methods, Relationships, Marker terms (sentiment words). The minor categories were: 1) relationships (couple relationship, sexual behavior, sexual, etc.); 2) methods (antioxidant, drug, ultrasound, anti-inflammatory, etc.); 3) marker terms (anxiety, emotion(al), death, psychological, etc.).
A total of 388 terms were identified in 11 groups. The frequency of the most common term in each category is taken as 100%. Top-5 terms for the major categories of scientific terminology related to “Coronavirus and Fertility” are listed below:
- “Coronavirus” (COVID-19, 100%; SARS CoV-2, 55%; pandemic, 45%; SARS-CoV-2 infection, 38%; COVID-19 pandemic, 34%);
- “COVID and other diseases” (stress(or), 100%; immune, 73%; diabetes, 32%; endocrine, 27%;
Inflammation, 27%);
- “Female reproductive health” (pregnancy, 100%; pregnancy rate, 35%; assisted reproduction technology (ART), 33%; oocyte, 33%; embryo, 25%);
- “Male reproductive health” (male fertility, 100%; Semen, 56%; testicular, 50%; testosterone (T), 44%; semen parameters, 44%);
- “Infertility (without gender)” (fertility, 100%; reproductive, 47%; infertility, 48%; fertility treatment, 26%; Fertility preservation (FP), 24%);
- “COVID vaccination” (COVID-19 vaccination, 100%; vaccine, 73%; vaccination, 65%; miR-371a-3p, 19%; side effects, 16%);
- “Genetics and molecular biology” (express(ion), 100%; angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2), 67%; hub genes, 53%; luteinizing hormone (LH), 47%; protein, 47%);
- “Research objects” (woman, 100%; child(ren), 57%; animal (rabbit, rat, mice), 45%; pregnant, 41%; male, 39%).
3.2. Social network terminology (Twitter)
Terms related to the field of coronavirus and fertility were divided by experts into thematic categories. Nine thematic categories were identified: COVID and other diseases, Coronavirus, Infertility (without gender), Female reproductive health (FRH), Male reproductive health (MRH), COVID vaccination, Discussion objects, Marker terms (sentiment words), Conspiracy theory. The minor category was the Conspiracy theory (poison, depopulation, Microchips, etc.).
A total of 220 terms were identified in 9 groups. The frequency of the most common term in each category is taken as 100%. Top-5 terms for the major categories tweets related to Coronavirus and Fertility are listed below:
- “Coronavirus” (COVID(-19), 100%; get covid, 10%; Long Covid, 7%; virus, 7%; COVID(-19) infection, 5%);
- “COVID and other diseases” (lung, 100%; cancer, 67%; heart attack, 67%; myocarditis, 67%; heart, 67%);
- “Female reproductive health” (pregnancy, 100%; baby, 43%; birth, 29%; pregnant women, 21%; in vitro fertilization (IVF) , 14%);
- “Male reproductive health” (male infertility, 100%; erectile dysfunction, 62%; sperm, 37%; sperm count, 37%; sex, 37%);
- “Infertility (without gender)” (fertility, 100%; infertility, 52%; sterility, 12%; fertility issues, 11%; fertility rate, 11%);
- “COVID vaccination” (COVID(-19) vaccine, 100%; vaccine, 98%; vaccinate, 38%; Covid(-19) Vaccination, 26%; vax, 18%);
- “Markers” (risk, 100%; death, 62%; damage, 56%; recover, 50%; safe, 37%);
- “Discussion objects” (people, 100%; men, 90%; women, 75%; children, 75%; population, 70%).
3.3. Comparison of scientific and social network terminologies
For matching categories in scientific and social network terminologies, a comparison was made by frequency terms. Terminological usage (frequency) indicates how often the terms of a given category are used in a discussion (Figure 4).
3.4. Detection of true and false judgments
3.4.1. Revealing scientific judgments (PubMed)
In the previous sections, we found that the interests of the scientific community and the community of Internet users coincide in many ways. Our next task was to find out how the opinions of Twitter users differ from scientific judgments. The following topics were chosen for the study: Male reproductive health and coronavirus, Male reproductive health and the vaccine, Female reproductive health and coronavirus, Female reproductive health and the vaccine. The contextual analysis described in the Methods section was used.
We applied contextual analysis of scientific texts. The contextual analysis included determining the evidence of the effect of coronavirus (COVID) on a reproductive system (organ, parameter) of the object of study, indicating the mechanism of action (or without it). Examples of results are shown in the table 1.
Table 1. Some results of contextual analysis of scientific texts related to “Reproductive system and Coronavirus”
Influence/
impact
|
Proved/not
|
Mechanism of action
|
Target, parameter
|
Object/
period
|
Male reproductive system and Coronavirus
|
effect of SARS-CoV-2 [16]
|
is significantly reduced
|
immunopathological damage
|
Testicles, semen index
|
After infection
|
Covid-19 [17]
|
Decreased, reduced
|
orchitis development
|
sperm quality, sperm count, sperm motility
|
patients with COVID-19
|
Covid-19 [18]
|
downregulation
|
semenogelin 1 and prosaposin
|
male fertility
|
COVID-19-recovered patients
|
detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus [19]
|
remains scarce,
has been reported
|
testicular damage and dysregulation of gonadotropins
|
testis
|
Males
|
COVID-19 Infection [20]
|
Induce
|
miR-371a-3p Upregulation
|
Fertility
|
Males
|
SARS-CoV-2 infection [21]
|
Direct effects
|
presence of viral entry receptors (ACE2 and/or CD147)
|
testicular cells, such as spermatocytes, Sertoli cells, Leydig cells
|
|
impacts of COVID-19 [22]
|
dysfunctions
|
the induction of systemic inflammatory responses and oxidative stress
|
reproduction
|
Males
|
impact of SARS-CoV-2 [23]
|
very limited evidence
|
impact on fertility parameters
|
male fertility and sexual health,
reproductive hormones, etc.
|
Males
|
COVID-19 [24]
|
negative impact
|
distribution of ACE2 and transmembrane protease serine 2
|
male fertility, sperm quality
|
autopsy
|
Female reproductive system and Coronavirus
|
SARS-CoV-2 infection [25]
|
may interfere
|
|
mice’s fertility, lower pregnancy rate
|
infected pregnant mice
|
|
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections [26]
|
have been associated
|
adverse perinatal outcomes
|
maternal morbidity
|
pregnancy
|
|
SARS-CoV-2 infection [27]
|
does not affect
|
|
oocyte yield, fertilization and maturation rate, number of good quality embryos, etc.
|
woman
|
|
SARS-CoV-2 infection [28]
|
increased risk
|
spontaneous abortion
|
complications
|
pregnant women
|
|
COVID-19 [29]
|
was not significantly affected
|
|
ovarian reserve
|
patients recovering
|
|
SARS-CoV-2 [30]
|
impair
|
Mitochondrial hijacking
|
fertility
|
female
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For topics “Male reproductive health and the vaccine”, “Female reproductive health and the vaccine” (table 2) we show only few results without mechanism of action because they are similar mainly.
Table 2. Some results of contextual analysis of scientific texts related to “Male/Female reproductive system and Vaccine”
Influence/
impact
|
Proved/not
|
Target, parameter
|
Object/
period
|
Vaccine [31]
|
does not seem to affect
|
sperm parameters
|
Male
|
COVID-19 vaccination [32]
|
did not affect
|
men's reproductive health, sperm quality and fertilization capacity
|
Men
|
vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 [17]
|
no evidence
|
spermatogenesis or male reproductive health
|
Male
|
Vaccine [33]
|
no negative impacts
|
fertility, the course of pregnancy, or fetal development
|
Woman
|
Vaccination [34]
|
no difference
|
clinical pregnancy rates, fertilization rate and transferred embryos’ quality
|
vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (woman)
|
COVID-19 vaccination [35]
|
Do not appear to adversely affect
|
assisted reproductive technology and pregnancy, gametes, embryos
|
Woman
|
We divided statements about the confirmation and denial of the impact of the coronavirus/vaccine on the reproductive health of men and women. Confirmatory markers include the following: “is significantly reduced”, “negative impact”, “can affect”, “decreased”, “reduced”, “downregulation”, “has been reported”, “observed”, “participates in”, “strong association”, “dysregulation”, “damage”, “direct effects”, etc. Negative markers include the following: “very little evidence”, “no viral RNA was detected”, “unclear”, “many unresolved questions”, “no evidence”, “limited evidence”, “remains unknown”, “does not seem to affect”, “no significant changes”, “did not affect”, “does not impair”, etc.
We then calculated the ratio of confirmatory (“yes”) and negative (“no”) markers in scientific documents by topics “Male reproductive health and coronavirus” (77,59% for “yes” and 22,41% for “no”), “Male reproductive health and the vaccine” (100% for “no”), “Female reproductive health and coronavirus” (66,67% for “yes” and 33,33% for “no”), “Female reproductive health and the vaccine” (8,33% for “yes” and 91,67% for “no”).
3.4.2. Revealing user judgments (Twitter)
The following topics were chosen for the study: Male reproductive health and coronavirus, Male reproductive health and the vaccine, Female reproductive health and coronavirus, Female reproductive health and the vaccine. We applied contextual analysis of tweets. The contextual analysis included determining the evidence of the effect of coronavirus (COVID) on a reproductive system (organ, parameter) of the object of discussion. Examples of results are shown in the table 3.
Table 3. Some results of contextual analysis of tweets related to “Male and female reproductive system and Coronavirus (Vaccine)”
Influence/
impact
|
Proved/not
|
Target, parameter
|
Object/
period
|
Covid
|
Reduces/impacts/can mess/ potentially negative effect/ diminished/ exponentially worse/ temporarily reduces/ may be messing
|
fertility
|
Men
|
COVID
|
Causes/can cause
|
infertility
|
Men
|
COVID
|
May Be Messing
|
Fertility, lower sperm count and motility
|
After infection Male
|
COVID
|
might effect
|
fertility
|
Children
|
COVID-19 infection
|
may lead
|
fertility problem
|
Men
|
Covid
|
is causing
|
erectile dysfunction, infertility
|
Men
|
Covid
|
affected
|
decreased sperm production and deformed sperm
|
Guy
|
COVID-19
|
might lead to
|
Infertility, testicular abnormalities,
testicular pathology
|
COVID-19 survivors
|
long Covid
|
Possible/ would lead
|
infertility
|
Male
|
Long Covid effects
|
effect
|
reproduction, sperm count
|
Male
|
long Covid effects
|
Some studies have shown
|
sex drive loss, fertility
|
Male
|
COVID
|
probably
|
delayed ovulation, period
|
Women
|
Long Covid
|
effect
|
reproductive fertility
|
Girls
|
long-term
|
Side effects'
|
Miscarriage, fetal abnormalities, fertility
|
Woman
|
Covid vaccines
|
cause
|
sterility
|
Men
|
Covid vaccine
|
Destroys/ It hasn’t been tested/may be a factor
|
fertility
|
Men
|
COVID‐19 vaccine
|
Linking/ adverse reaction
|
infertility
|
Male
|
Covid vaccines
|
may cause
|
sterility
|
Man
|
Covid vaccine
|
most common side effect
|
sterility, or dysmenorrhea
|
Woman
|
COVID-19 vaccines
|
no evidence
|
fertility problems
|
Any gender
|
Covidvaccine
|
there was no link
|
infertility
|
both men and woman
|
COVID vaccines
|
no information
|
fertility
|
Female
|
vaccines
|
no indication
|
infertility
|
Either sex
|
COVID vaccination
|
the effect is small and temporary
|
menstrual cycle timing
|
Women
|
COVID-19 vaccine
|
does not harm
|
wombs
|
Women
|
Covid vaccine
|
affects is a lie
|
Uteruses, fertility
|
Women
|
COVID19 vaccination
|
no evidence
|
clinical outcomes in IVF,
fertility
|
Women
|
COVID-19 vaccinations
|
misinformation
|
pregnancy, fertility and breastfeeding
|
Women
|
vaccination
|
no evidence
|
affect fertility
|
Women trying to become pregnant
|
vaccinated
|
Poison, damages
|
fertility
|
All
|
vaccinated
|
baseless fearmongering
|
fertility
|
pregnant women
|
Vax
|
control of the population
|
fertility
|
Men
|
Covid jabs
|
destroy
|
fertility
|
Civilization
|
Covid shot
|
is effecting/ messing
|
fertility
|
Men (and female)
|
vax
|
wreck the immune system
|
Fertility
|
European women
|
Covid vaxx
|
causes
|
infertility
|
Women
|
Moderna COVID vaccine
|
damaging
|
unborn child, fertility
|
Women
|
We divided statements about the confirmation and denial of the impact of the coronavirus/vaccine on the reproductive health of men and women. Confirmatory markers include the following: “may be messing”, “reduces”, “possible”, “impacts”, “causes”, “effect”, “would lead”, “potentially negative effect”, ‘is messing”, “alters”, “it seriously affected”, “affected”, “destroy”, “diminished”, “impaired”, etc. Negative markers include: “no information”, “does not impact”, “no effects”, “do not cause”, “no evidence”, “there was no link”, “the effect is small and temporary”, “has no impact”, “misinformation”, “affects is a lie”, etc.
We then calculated the ratio of confirmatory (“yes”) and negative (“no”) markers in tweets by topics “Male reproductive health and coronavirus” (100% for “yes”), “Male reproductive health and the vaccine” (77,27% for “yes” and 22,73% for “no”), “Female reproductive health and coronavirus”, (100% for “yes”), “Female reproductive health and the vaccine” (22,22% for “yes” and 77,78% for “no”).