Novel sperm chromatin dispersion test with artificial intelligence‐aided halo evaluation: A comparison study with existing modalities

Abstract

BackgroundSperm chromatin dispersion test is a common and inexpensive technique to assess sperm DNA fragmentation, but its subjectivity in assessing a small number of spermatozoa is a disadvantage.ObjectivesTo study the efficacy of a new sperm chromatin dispersion test kit (R10) combined with an artificial intelligence‐aided halo‐evaluation platform (X12) and compare the results to those of existing sperm DNA fragmentation testing methods.Materials and methodsSemen samples from normozoospermic donors (n = 10) and infertile men with abnormal semen parameters (n = 10) were enrolled. DNA fragmentation indices were examined by multiple assays, including R10, Halosperm G2 (G2), sperm chromatin structure assay, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxynucleotidyl transferase nick end labeling. In R10 assay, the DNA fragmentation indices were obtained both manually (manual R10) and by X12 (AI‐R10). The obtained DNA fragmentation indices were analyzed by agreement analyses.ResultsThe DNA fragmentation indices obtained by manual R10 and those obtained by AI‐R10 showed a strong significant correlation (r = 0.97, p < 0.001) and agreement. The number of spermatozoa evaluated by AI‐R10 was 2078 (680–5831). The DNA fragmentation indices obtained by manual R10 and AI‐R10 both correlated with those of G2 (r = 0.90, p < 0.001; r = 0.88, p < 0.001). Between the AI‐R10 and G2 results, Passing–Bablok regression showed no systematic or proportional difference, and Bland–Altman plots revealed overall agreement and a mean bias of 6.3% with an SD of 6.9% (95% limit of agreement: −7.2% to 19.9%). AI‐R10 and sperm chromatin structure assays showed systematic differences with a mean bias of −1.9%, while AI‐R10 and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxynucleotidyl transferase nick end labeling revealed proportional differences with a mean bias of −10.7%.ConclusionsThe novel sperm chromatin dispersion kit and artificial intelligence‐aided platform demonstrated significant correlation and agreement with existing sperm chromatin dispersion methods by assessing greater number of spermatozoa. This technique has the potential to provide a rapid and accurate assessment of sperm DNA fragmentation without technical expertise or flow cytometry.

Gaussian clustering and quantification of the sperm chromatin dispersion test using convolutional neural networks

“…Recently, models for automation of the SCD test have been introduced, 39–41 but most of them are semi-quantitative classifier models. We establish our modified standard upon the commonly used definition of the relative halo radius and take into consideration the variable staining status and inter-operator variability.…”

Sperm DNA integrity: a special issue exploring the causes, consequences, and treatment of DNA damage in human spermatozoa

“…However, we still have some way to travel. The development of novel consensus methods for detecting DNA damage, 14 determining which patients should be assessed, 30 elucidation of the relative importance of single and double strand breaks, 31 the significance of oxidative stress in the induction of such damage, 26 the potential therapeutic role for antioxidants, 32 and the consequences of sperm DNA damage in terms of male fertility and the health and wellbeing of the offspring, 23,24,26 all need to be elucidated before the true clinical significance of such damage becomes clear.…”

“…9 Diagnostic methods such as the MiOXSYS ® and OxiSperm ® II have been developed commercially, however neither of these assays appears to provide any meaningful assessment of oxidative stress in spermatozoa, as revealed by Castleton et al and others. [10][11][12][13] Moreover, Kuroda et al 14 observed no significant correlation between sperm DNA damage and oxidative stress as measured by the MiOXSYS ® system, despite the abundance of data revealing the fundamental importance of free radical attack in the induction of sperm DNA fragmentation. 15 Clearly, improved methods are needed to detect oxidative stress in patients presenting with high levels of sperm DNA damage.…”

Investigating the impact of the sperm DNA fragmentation index of male partners from infertile couples on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes

“…The sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) method [7] was employed to determine the sperm DFI. Sperm DNA fragmentation staining kit was procured from Anhui Anke Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Anhui He Food and Drug Supervision and Measures (Quasi) No.…”