OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of the CellForm-Human (CFH) automated sperm morphometry instrument (Motion Analysis Corp., Santa Rosa, CA). SETTING: Clinical and research andrology and in vitro fertilization laboratories. PATIENTS: Individuals undergoing semen evaluation and infertility work-up. RESULTS: Coefficients of variation for repeated measures of the same sperm were 1%. Coefficients of variation of normal sperm measurements were 7.4% to 12.8%, depending on the measure. Of the objects recognized as sperm by the instrument, 6.8% were debris; hence, the sperm recognition algorithms need improvement. Mean values for all CFH measures of normal sperm from specimens clinically classified as having predominantly normal, tapered, or amorphous sperm were not different; hence, the morphometry of normal sperm from normal specimens was similar to normal sperm from specimens with two different abnormalities. The instrument classified sperm as abnormal if their length or width fell outside a critical range of values recommended by the World Health Organization. Using this method, manual and CFH classification agreed unambiguously 60% of the time. When disagreement occurred, length or width marginally exceeded the range by no more than 0.1 microns. In these cases, the technician classified sperm as normal 25% of the time and classified them as abnormal 6% of the time. Because this disagreement between methods is well below the resolution of manual methods, the overall accuracy of CFH was 91% for cell type classification. CONCLUSION: At its present stage of development, the CFH instrument exceeds the accuracy and precision of most manual approaches. With improvements in sperm recognition and type classification algorithms, it could significantly improve the reliability of morphology assays in clinical and research laboratories.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of the CellForm-Human (CFH) automated sperm morphometry instrument (Motion Analysis Corp., Santa Rosa, CA). SETTING: Clinical and research andrology and in vitro fertilization laboratories. PATIENTS: Individuals undergoing semen evaluation and infertility work-up. RESULTS: Coefficients of variation for repeated measures of the same sperm were 1%. Coefficients of variation of normal sperm measurements were 7.4% to 12.8%, depending on the measure. Of the objects recognized as sperm by the instrument, 6.8% were debris; hence, the sperm recognition algorithms need improvement. Mean values for all CFH measures of normal sperm from specimens clinically classified as having predominantly normal, tapered, or amorphous sperm were not different; hence, the morphometry of normal sperm from normal specimens was similar to normal sperm from specimens with two different abnormalities. The instrument classified sperm as abnormal if their length or width fell outside a critical range of values recommended by the World Health Organization. Using this method, manual and CFH classification agreed unambiguously 60% of the time. When disagreement occurred, length or width marginally exceeded the range by no more than 0.1 microns. In these cases, the technician classified sperm as normal 25% of the time and classified them as abnormal 6% of the time. Because this disagreement between methods is well below the resolution of manual methods, the overall accuracy of CFH was 91% for cell type classification. CONCLUSION: At its present stage of development, the CFH instrument exceeds the accuracy and precision of most manual approaches. With improvements in sperm recognition and type classification algorithms, it could significantly improve the reliability of morphology assays in clinical and research laboratories.
Authors: Giuseppe Bellastella; Trevor G Cooper; Marina Battaglia; Anda Ströse; Inma Torres; Barbara Hellenkemper; Carles Soler; Antonio A Sinisi Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 3.285