Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40989372›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025

Unveiling the capabilities of vision transformers in sperm morphology analysis: a comparative evaluation.

Abdulsamet Aktas, Gorkem Serbes, Hamza Osman Ilhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Abdulsamet AktasDepartment of Computer Engineering Faculty of Technology, Marmara University Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-0746-7693
Gorkem SerbesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering Faculty of Electrical and Electronics, Yildiz Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-4591-7368
Hamza Osman IlhanDepartment of Computer Engineering Faculty of Electrical and Electronics, Yildiz Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-1753-2703

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional sperm morphology assessment relies on manual visual inspection or semi-automated computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) systems, which often require labor-intensive pre-processing steps. While recent machine learning approaches, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have improved feature extraction from sperm images, achieving a fully automated and highly accurate system remains challenging due to the complexity of sperm morphology and the need for specialized image adjustments. This study presents a novel, end-to-end automated sperm morphology analysis framework based on vision transformers (ViTs), which processes raw sperm images from two benchmark datasets-Human Sperm Head Morphology (HuSHeM) and Sperm Morphology Image Data Set (SMIDS)-without manual pre-processing. We conducted an extensive hyperparameter optimization study across eight ViT variants, evaluating learning rates, optimization algorithms, and data augmentation scales. Our experiments demonstrated that data augmentation significantly enhances ViT performance by improving generalization, particularly in limited-data scenarios. A comparative analysis of CNNs, hybrid models, and pure ViTs revealed that transformer-based architectures consistently outperform traditional methods. The BEiT_Base model achieved state-of-the-art accuracies of 92.5% (SMIDS) and 93.52% (HuSHeM), surpassing prior CNN-based approaches by 1.63% and 1.42%, respectively. Statistical significance (

Indexed as

Deep learningSperm morphology analysisSperm morphology dataset benchmarkingVision transformer

Identifiers

PMID40989372
PMCPMC12453802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.