Robotic ICSI (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is the first report of robotic intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). ICSI is a clinical procedure performed worldwide in fertility clinics, requiring pick-up of a single sperm and insertion of it into an oocyte (i.e., egg cell). Since its invention 20 years ago, ICSI has been conducted manually by a handful of highly skilled embryologists; however, success rates vary significantly among clinics due to poor reproducibility and inconsistency across operators. We leverage our work in robotic cell injection to realize robotic ICSI and aim ultimately, to standardize how clinical ICSI is performed. This paper presents some of the technical aspects of our robotic ICSI system, including a cell holding device, motion control, and computer vision algorithms. The system performs visual tracking of single sperm, robotic immobilization of sperm, aspiration of sperm with picoliter volume, and insertion of sperm into an oocyte with a high degree of reproducibility. The system requires minimal human involvement (requiring only a few computer mouse clicks), and is human operator skill independent. Using the hamster oocyte-human sperm model in preliminary trials, the robotic system demonstrated a high success rate of 90.0% and survival rate of 90.7% (n=120).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".