ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep-learning-based automated prediction of mouse seminiferous tubule stage by using bright-field microscopy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Infertility is a global issue, and approximately 50% of cases are due to male factors, with defective spermatogenesis being the main one. For studies of spermatogenesis, evaluating the seminiferous tubule stage is essential. However, current evaluation methods involve labor-intensive manual tasks with a lack of reproducibility owing to the subjective nature of visual evaluation by experts. Here, we propose a deep-learning-based method for automatically and objectively evaluating the seminiferous tubule stage. Our approach predicts which of 12 seminiferous tubule stages is represented in bright-field microscopic images of mouse seminiferous tubules stained by hematoxylin-PAS. The maximum prediction accuracy of our approach was 79.58% which rose to 98.33% with allowance for a prediction error of [Formula: see text] stage. Remarkably, although the model was not explicitly trained on the stage transition patterns, it inferred the patterns involved in the spermatogenesis. This method not only advances our understanding of spermatogenesis but also holds promise for improving the automated diagnosis of infertility.
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.