ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Evaluation of vision transformers and vision foundation models for sperm morphology analysis.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2026. 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
Background: Sperm morphology assessment is an essential but highly variable component of semen analysis, influenced by staining, image quality, acquisition conditions, and observer interpretation. Modern pretrained visual encoders may improve the objectivity and reproducibility of this assessment, but their performance and robustness in sperm morphology analysis remain insufficiently characterized. Objectives: To compare vision transformers and vision foundation models with established pretrained CNNs for sperm morphology classification; assess the effect of adaptation strategy; and evaluate performance consistency across image sources, generalization to unseen datasets, and the morphological relevance of model attributions. Methods: We evaluated binary normal-versus-abnormal sperm morphology classification using 7,770 microscopy images (1,253 normal and 6,517 abnormal sperm images) obtained from three independent institutional sources and representing abnormalities of the sperm head, neck/midpiece, and tail. Ten pretrained vision transformers and vision foundation-models spanning supervised, self-supervised, masked-image, and vision-language pretraining were evaluated using linear probing, light fine-tuning, and full fine-tuning. Five pretrained CNNs served as reference baselines. Primary analyses used source-stratified training, validation, and test partitions within each dataset to assess pooled performance, source-specific performance, and class-specific recall. Secondary analyses evaluated generalization to completely unseen datasets through leave-one-source-out validation and examined model attribution patterns using architecture-appropriate explainability methods. Results: SigLIP2 with full fine-tuning and ConvNeXt-Tiny achieved comparable weighted F1 scores (0.958 and 0.955, respectively), while BEiT with full fine-tuning and SigLIP2 with light fine-tuning achieved the highest ROC-AUC (0.982). SigLIP2 with full fine-tuning also produced the highest equal-weight cross-source macro-F1 (0.91) and normal-class recall (0.91). External generalization varied markedly across held-out image sources, with DINOv2 under full fine-tuning achieving ROC-AUCs ranging from 0.654 to 0.928 across the three external evaluations. Explainability analyses generally localized predictions to sperm-related structures. Conclusions: Pretraining strategy, adaptation depth, and dataset shift substantially influenced performance. Vision transformers and vision foundation models demonstrated strong potential for AI-assisted sperm morphology assessment, supporting their further development as scalable tools to improve the objectivity, consistency, and efficiency of semen analysis.
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.