ArticleScientific reports2025
Use of a sperm morphology assessment standardisation training tool improves the accuracy of novice sperm morphologists.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sperm morphology assessment is recognised as a critical, yet variable, test of male fertility. This variability is due in part to the lack of standardised training for morphologists. This study utilised a bespoke 'Sperm Morphology Assessment Standardisation Training Tool' to train novice morphologists using machine learning principles and consisted of two experiments. Experiment 1 assessed novice morphologists' (n = 22) accuracy across 2- category (normal; abnormal), 5- category (normal; head defect, midpiece defect, tail defect, cytoplasmic droplet), 8- category (normal; cytoplasmic droplet; midpiece defect; loose heads and abnormal tails; pyriform head; knobbed acrosomes; vacuoles and teratoids; swollen acrosomes), and 25- category (normal; all defects defined individually) classification systems, with untrained users achieving 81.0 ± 2.5%, 68 ± 3.59%, 64 ± 3.5%, and 53 ± 3.69%, respectively. A second cohort (n = 16) exposed to a visual aid and video significantly improved first-test accuracy (94.9 ± 0.66%, 92.9 ± 0.81%, 90 ± 0.91% and 82.7 ± 1.05, p < 0.001). Experiment 2 evaluated repeated training over four weeks, resulting in significant improvement in accuracy (82 ± 1.05% to 90 ± 1.38%, p < 0.001) and diagnostic speed (7.0 ± 0.4s to 4.9 ± 0.3s, p < 0.001). Final accuracy rates reached 98 ± 0.43%, 97 ± 0.58%, 96 ± 0.81%, and 90 ± 1.38% across classification systems 2-, 5-, 8- and 25-categories respectively. Significant differences in accuracy and variation were observed between the classification systems. This tool effectively standardised sperm morphology assessment. Future research could explore its application in other species, including in human andrology, given its accessibility and adaptability across classification systems.
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.