Testing the reproducibility and effectiveness of deep learning models among clinics: sperm detection as a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Deep learning has been increasingly investigated for assisting clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF). The first technical step in many tasks is to visually detect and locate sperm, oocytes, and embryos in images. For clinical deployment of such deep learning models, different clinics use different image acquisition hardware and different sample preprocessing protocols, raising the concern over whether the reported accuracy of a deep learning model by one clinic could be reproduced in another clinic. Here we aim to investigate the effect of each imaging factor on the reproducibility of object detection models, using sperm analysis as a pilot example. Methods: Ablation studies were performed using state-of-the-art models for detecting human sperm to quantitatively assess how model precision (false-positive detection) and recall (missed detection) were affected by imaging magnification, imaging mode, and sample preprocessing protocols. The results led to the hypothesis that the richness of image acquisition conditions in a training dataset deterministically affects model reproducibility. The hypothesis was tested by first enriching the training dataset with a wide range of imaging conditions, then validated through internal blind tests on new samples and external multi-center clinical validations. Results: Ablation experiments revealed that removing subsets of data from the training dataset significantly reduced model precision. Removing raw sample images from the training dataset caused the largest drop in model precision, whereas removing 20x images caused the largest drop in model recall. by incorporating different imaging and sample preprocessing conditions into a rich training dataset, the model achieved an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99) for precision, and an ICC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99) for recall. Multi-center clinical validation showed no significant differences in model precision or recall across different clinics and applications. Conclusions: The results validated the hypothesis that the richness of data in the training dataset is a key factor impacting model reproducibility. These findings highlight the importance of diversity in a training dataset for model evaluation and suggest that future deep learning models in andrology and reproductive medicine should incorporate comprehensive feature sets for enhanced reproducibility across clinics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".