Yongxin Wang1, Jiali Yang1, Yanping Jia1, Chengliang Xiong2, Tianqing Meng2, Huangtao Guan2, Wei Xia2, Mingyue Ding3, Ming Yuchi4. 1. Key Laboratory of Image Processing and Intelligent Control of the Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Life Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China. 2. Research Institute of Family Planning, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China. 3. Key Laboratory of Image Processing and Intelligent Control of the Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Life Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China; Wuhan National Laboratory for Optoelectronics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China. 4. Key Laboratory of Image Processing and Intelligent Control of the Ministry of Education, Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Life Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: m.yuchi@hust.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the variability in the recognition of normal sperm and various sperm defects using the strict criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (5th edition, 2010). DESIGN: Sperm morphologic assessment by three experienced evaluators. SETTING: Image processing laboratory and reproduction research institute. PATIENT(S): Semen donors from a sperm bank. INTERVENTION(S): The morphology of 5,296 sperm was evaluated using statistical analyses of variability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion and coefficients of variation (CVs) of normal sperm, defects of specific parts, and the categories of defects were measured. The degree of agreement between any two of the three evaluators was calculated. The multiple anomalies index, teratozoospermia index, sperm deformity index, and the CVs were also measured. RESULT(S): The CVs of normal sperm, multiple anomalies index, teratozoospermia index, and sperm deformity index were 4.80%, 4.14%, 5.75%, and 6.81%, respectively. A broader range (4.80%-132.97%) of CVs was observed for the recognition of various defects. The coefficients of the degree of agreement concerning specific morphologic parts of sperm varied (0.387-0.607), with lower relative values for the head and mid-piece than for the tail and cytoplasm. CONCLUSION(S): The sperm head is more difficult to evaluate than the other parts using the criteria recommended by the World Health Organization in 2010. The degree of agreement concerning specific parts and various defects varied in broad ranges. A stricter definition for each defect is needed. Crown
OBJECTIVE: To determine the variability in the recognition of normal sperm and various sperm defects using the strict criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (5th edition, 2010). DESIGN: Sperm morphologic assessment by three experienced evaluators. SETTING: Image processing laboratory and reproduction research institute. PATIENT(S): Semen donors from a sperm bank. INTERVENTION(S): The morphology of 5,296 sperm was evaluated using statistical analyses of variability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion and coefficients of variation (CVs) of normal sperm, defects of specific parts, and the categories of defects were measured. The degree of agreement between any two of the three evaluators was calculated. The multiple anomalies index, teratozoospermia index, sperm deformity index, and the CVs were also measured. RESULT(S): The CVs of normal sperm, multiple anomalies index, teratozoospermia index, and sperm deformity index were 4.80%, 4.14%, 5.75%, and 6.81%, respectively. A broader range (4.80%-132.97%) of CVs was observed for the recognition of various defects. The coefficients of the degree of agreement concerning specific morphologic parts of sperm varied (0.387-0.607), with lower relative values for the head and mid-piece than for the tail and cytoplasm. CONCLUSION(S): The sperm head is more difficult to evaluate than the other parts using the criteria recommended by the World Health Organization in 2010. The degree of agreement concerning specific parts and various defects varied in broad ranges. A stricter definition for each defect is needed. Crown
Authors: Jacob Netherton; Rachel A Ogle; Louise Hetherington; Ana Izabel Silva Balbin Villaverde; Hubert Hondermarck; Mark A Baker Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Louise Hetherington; Elena K Schneider; Caroline Scott; David DeKretser; Charles H Muller; Hubert Hondermarck; Tony Velkov; Mark A Baker Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Karen C Baker; Anne Z Steiner; Karl R Hansen; Kurt T Barnhart; Marcelle I Cedars; Richard S Legro; Michael P Diamond; Stephen A Krawetz; Rebecca Usadi; Valerie L Baker; R Matthew Coward; Fangbai Sun; Robert Wild; Puneet Masson; James F Smith; Nanette Santoro; Heping Zhang Journal: F S Rep Date: 2022-03-17
Authors: Frederick N Dong; Amir Amiri-Yekta; Guillaume Martinez; Antoine Saut; Julie Tek; Laurence Stouvenel; Patrick Lorès; Thomas Karaouzène; Nicolas Thierry-Mieg; Véronique Satre; Sophie Brouillet; Abbas Daneshipour; Seyedeh Hanieh Hosseini; Mélanie Bonhivers; Hamid Gourabi; Emmanuel Dulioust; Christophe Arnoult; Aminata Touré; Pierre F Ray; Haiqing Zhao; Charles Coutton Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 11.025