I suppose they mean "volume" as in physical size of sperm
It is semen volume. Also, "motility" here refers to the % motile sperm, which is an established parameter measured in semen analysis. They don't seem to be trying to hide the fact that there is a reduction in the total motile sperm since they've provided it in the abstract; the point is this is a function of the reduction in total count rather than % motility.
Edit: Actually, I stand corrected. Looking through their actual data, it does appear that % motile sperm is slightly decreased (by 2-5%) with a marginal p value (0.058). It is incorrect to report this as "stable" when it does suggest a reduction. In addition, their data does NOT clearly show a return to baseline; motile sperm counts remain lower at their final timepoint, and likely are not statistically significant from baseline timepoint due to inadequate power. The statistical interpretations in that study are terrible - a reduction that is non statistical significant cannot be used to infer that there is no difference, it can only be used to infer that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference.
Contradictions between the abstract and the conclusions, or the abstract and data, or the conclusions and the data itself are quite common. And nobody even cares because scientists don't even read the papers they cite.
It is semen volume. Also, "motility" here refers to the % motile sperm, which is an established parameter measured in semen analysis. They don't seem to be trying to hide the fact that there is a reduction in the total motile sperm since they've provided it in the abstract; the point is this is a function of the reduction in total count rather than % motility.
Edit: Actually, I stand corrected. Looking through their actual data, it does appear that % motile sperm is slightly decreased (by 2-5%) with a marginal p value (0.058). It is incorrect to report this as "stable" when it does suggest a reduction. In addition, their data does NOT clearly show a return to baseline; motile sperm counts remain lower at their final timepoint, and likely are not statistically significant from baseline timepoint due to inadequate power. The statistical interpretations in that study are terrible - a reduction that is non statistical significant cannot be used to infer that there is no difference, it can only be used to infer that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference.
Contradictions between the abstract and the conclusions, or the abstract and data, or the conclusions and the data itself are quite common. And nobody even cares because scientists don't even read the papers they cite.