Prediction of DNA Integrity from Morphological Parameters Using a Single‐Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index Assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is a popular form of in vitro fertilization, where single sperm are selected by a clinician and injected into an egg. Whereas clinicians employ general morphology‐based guidelines to select the healthiest‐looking sperm, it remains unclear to what extent an individual sperm's physical parameters correlate with the quality of internal DNA cargo—a measurement that cannot be obtained without first damaging the sperm. Herein, a single‐cell DNA fragmentation index (DFI) assay is demonstrated, which combines the single‐cell nature of the acridine orange test with the quantitative aspect of the sperm chromatin structure assay, to create a database of DFI‐scored brightfield images. Two regression predictive models, linear and nonlinear regression, are used to quantify the correlations between individual sperm morphological parameters and DFI score (with model test r at 0.558 and 0.620 for linear and nonlinear regression models, respectively). The sample is also split into two categories of either relatively good or bad DFIs and a classification predictive model based on logistic regression is used to categorize sperm, resulting in a test accuracy of 0.827. Here, the first systematic study is presented on the correlation and prediction of sperm DNA integrity from morphological parameters at the single‐cell level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".