ArticleScientific reports2023
Sperm motility assessed by deep convolutional neural networks into WHO categories.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in the choice of sperm for ICSI - A Literature Review.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2026Pooled it
- Refined trajectory smoothing and deep learning classification of human sperm motility.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- An Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer Vision Model for Human Sperm Concentration, Motility, and Kinematics Analysis.Smart medicine · 2026Article
- A Novel Lightweight Deep Learning Model for Boar Sperm Head Detection in Microscopic Images: YOLO11_SRP.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Comparison of Tree-Based Machine Learning Algorithms for Classification of Livestock Breeds Based On Post-Thaw Spermatological Parameters.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Effect of in vitro exposure of first-line antiretrovirals on healthy human spermatozoa on kinematics and motility.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- The use of artificial intelligence in sexual and reproductive health: a comprehensive scoping review.npj women's health · 2025Article
- Sperm YOLOv8E-TrackEVD: A Novel Approach for Sperm Detection and Tracking.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Semen analysis is central in infertility investigation. Manual assessment of sperm motility according to the WHO recommendations is the golden standard, and extensive training is a requirement for accurate and reproducible results. Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) are especially suitable for image classification. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the DCNN ResNet-50 in predicting the proportion of sperm in the WHO motility categories. Two models were evaluated using tenfold cross-validation with 65 video recordings of wet semen preparations from an external quality assessment programme for semen analysis. The corresponding manually assessed data was obtained from several of the reference laboratories, and the mean values were used for training of the DCNN models. One model was trained to predict the three categories progressive motility, non-progressive motility, and immotile spermatozoa. Another model was used in predicting four categories, where progressive motility was differentiated into rapid and slow. The resulting average mean absolute error (MAE) was 0.05 and 0.07, and the average ZeroR baseline was 0.09 and 0.10 for the three-category and the four-category model, respectively. Manual and DCNN-predicted motility was compared by Pearson's correlation coefficient and by difference plots. The strongest correlation between the mean manually assessed values and DCNN-predicted motility was observed for % progressively motile spermatozoa (Pearson's r = 0.88, p < 0.001) and % immotile spermatozoa (r = 0.89, p < 0.001). For rapid progressive motility, the correlation was moderate (Pearson's r = 0.673, p < 0.001). The median difference between manual and predicted progressive motility was 0 and 2 for immotile spermatozoa. The largest bias was observed at high and low percentages of progressive and immotile spermatozoa. The DCNN-predicted value was within the range of the interlaboratory variation of the results for most of the samples. In conclusion, DCNN models were able to predict the proportion of spermatozoa into the WHO motility categories with significantly lower error than the baseline. The best correlation between the manual and the DCNN-predicted motility values was found for the categories progressive and immotile. Of note, there was considerable variation between the mean motility values obtained for each category by the reference laboratories, especially for rapid progressive motility, which impacts the training of the DCNN models.
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.