Automated Sperm Morphology Analysis Based on Instance-Aware Part Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional sperm morphology analysis is based on tedious manual annotation. Automated morphology analysis of a high number of sperm requires accurate segmentation of each sperm part and quantitative morphology evaluation. State-of-the-art instance-aware part segmentation networks follow a "detect-then-segment" paradigm. However, due to sperm’s slim shape, their segmentation suffers from large context loss and feature distortion due to bounding box cropping and resizing during ROI Align. Moreover, morphology measurement of sperm tail is demanding because of the long and curved shape and its uneven width. This paper presents automated techniques to measure sperm morphology parameters automatically and quantitatively. A novel attention-based instance-aware part segmentation network is designed to reconstruct lost contexts outside bounding boxes and to fix distorted features, by refining preliminary segmented masks through merging features extracted by feature pyramid network. An automated centerline-based tail morphology measurement method is also proposed, in which an outlier filtering method and endpoint detection algorithm are designed to accurately reconstruct tail endpoints. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed network outperformed the state-of-the-art top-down RP-R-CNN by 9.2% ${\mathbf{AP}}_{vol}^p$, and the proposed automated tail morphology measurement method achieved high measurement accuracies of 95.34%,96.39%,91.20% for length, width and curvature, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".