ArticleIranian journal of veterinary research2025
Canine semen evaluation using a new configuration of the CASA system.
Article in Iranian journal of veterinary research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For many years, the computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) has been one standard in the laboratory for semen evaluation, with no clear description of a species-specific setup. Aims: This study aimed to adjust the cell detection parameters (Head Brightness Minimum "HBM" and Head Size Minimum "AREA") of the CASA system and to assess their effects on evaluating canine semen, specifically concentration and motility. Methods: For this purpose, 20 ejaculates were collected from six dogs and subjected to microscopic assessment of motility, concentration evaluation using the SDM1 photometer, cell counting using a Neubauer chamber, and kinetic and morphometric analysis using the HT-IVOS II CASA system. Each CASA analysis was recorded, and then the video was re-analyzed by changing the two cell detection parameters (HBM and AREA). A total of 27 settings were used, and 560 CASA assessments were performed. Data were statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS. Results: The results showed that the HT-IVOS II CASA system provided an average concentration value (287.17 million spermatozoa (SPZ)/ml) much closer to that obtained by the reference method, Neubauer counting (286.45 million SPZ/ml), compared to the photometer (260.35 million SPZ/ml), which deviated from the gold standard technique by 26 million. In contrast, the IVOS with the adjusted setting (HBM140, AREA4) only presented a difference of 0.5. The IVOS II with the adjusted showing a strong correlation with the Neubauer count and the SDM photometer, with a correlation coefficient of R= 0.94. A perfect concordance was recorded between total and progressive motility evaluated by conventional microscopy and the percentages of motile and progressive sperm analyzed by HT-IVOS at values 120 and 140 for the HBM and 4 and 6 μm² for the AREA. Conclusion: An optimal cell detection parameter setting (HBM: 140 and AREA: 4 μm²) was selected and proposed for the HT-IVOS II CASA system.
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.