{"title":"智能手机技术用于采集精液分析样本的视频和图像的诊断准确性:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Anju Khairwa, Pratibha Gautum, Richa Gupta","doi":"10.1080/20905998.2024.2441109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Semen analysis is an essential indicator of male infertility potential. The study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphones compared to manual microscopy for semen analysis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>It is a cross-sectional analytical study with investigator blinding. Data were collected from August to September 2023. Pictures of semen analysis were captured through light microscopy and stored in a coded format on a smartphone. Later, the results of both methods were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 adequate semen samples were included. The age of enrolled males was Mean±SD 29.4 ± 5.9 years. The sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively, for smartphones compared to light microscopy for total sperm counts. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were both 100%, with (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for total sperm motility were 97.9%, 100%, 100%, and 66%, respectively. For normal morphology sperm, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of smartphones were 72.7%, 82.1%, 53.3%, and 91.4%, respectively, and for abnormal morphology sperm, they were 100%, 98%, 50%, and 100%, respectively. Smartphones exhibited a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 50% for assessing sperm vitality. The diagnostic agreement between smartphones and light microscopy was very good (κ value -0.6-1) for the detection of total count, vitality, and total motility of sperm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Smartphone technology demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for semen analysis compared to manual microscopy. It also shows excellent agreement with manual microscopy for most parameters in semen analysis. We recommend smartphone reporting for semen analysis in remote areas and poor resource settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":8113,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Urology","volume":"23 4","pages":"266-272"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12493608/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone technology for capturing videos and images of semen analysis samples: A cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Anju Khairwa, Pratibha Gautum, Richa Gupta\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20905998.2024.2441109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Semen analysis is an essential indicator of male infertility potential. The study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphones compared to manual microscopy for semen analysis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>It is a cross-sectional analytical study with investigator blinding. Data were collected from August to September 2023. Pictures of semen analysis were captured through light microscopy and stored in a coded format on a smartphone. Later, the results of both methods were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 adequate semen samples were included. The age of enrolled males was Mean±SD 29.4 ± 5.9 years. The sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively, for smartphones compared to light microscopy for total sperm counts. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were both 100%, with (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for total sperm motility were 97.9%, 100%, 100%, and 66%, respectively. For normal morphology sperm, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of smartphones were 72.7%, 82.1%, 53.3%, and 91.4%, respectively, and for abnormal morphology sperm, they were 100%, 98%, 50%, and 100%, respectively. Smartphones exhibited a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 50% for assessing sperm vitality. The diagnostic agreement between smartphones and light microscopy was very good (κ value -0.6-1) for the detection of total count, vitality, and total motility of sperm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Smartphone technology demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for semen analysis compared to manual microscopy. It also shows excellent agreement with manual microscopy for most parameters in semen analysis. We recommend smartphone reporting for semen analysis in remote areas and poor resource settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"23 4\",\"pages\":\"266-272\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12493608/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20905998.2024.2441109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20905998.2024.2441109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:精液分析是男性不育症的重要指标。该研究旨在评估与人工显微镜相比,智能手机在精液分析中的诊断准确性。方法:采用研究者盲法横断面分析研究。数据收集时间为2023年8月至9月。精液分析的图片通过光学显微镜捕获,并以编码格式存储在智能手机上。然后比较两种方法的结果。结果:共获得50份精液样本。入组男性年龄为Mean±SD 29.4±5.9岁。与光学显微镜相比,智能手机检测精子总数的灵敏度和特异性分别为100% (95% CI 83.9%-100%)和(95% CI 88.1%-100%)。阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)均为100%,分别为(95% CI 83.9% ~ 100%)和(95% CI 88.1% ~ 100%)。总精子活力的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为97.9%、100%、100%和66%。对于形态正常的精子,智能手机的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为72.7%、82.1%、53.3%和91.4%;对于形态异常的精子,智能手机的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为100%、98%、50%和100%。智能手机在评估精子活力方面的灵敏度为98%,特异性为100%,PPV为100%,NPV为50%。智能手机与光学显微镜对精子总数、活力、总能动性检测的诊断一致性非常好(κ值-0.6-1)。结论:与人工显微镜相比,智能手机技术在精液分析中具有较高的灵敏度和特异性。在精液分析的大多数参数中,它也显示出与手工显微镜的极好一致性。我们建议在偏远地区和资源贫乏的环境中使用智能手机报告精液分析。
Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone technology for capturing videos and images of semen analysis samples: A cross-sectional study.
Background: Semen analysis is an essential indicator of male infertility potential. The study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphones compared to manual microscopy for semen analysis.
Method: It is a cross-sectional analytical study with investigator blinding. Data were collected from August to September 2023. Pictures of semen analysis were captured through light microscopy and stored in a coded format on a smartphone. Later, the results of both methods were compared.
Results: A total of 50 adequate semen samples were included. The age of enrolled males was Mean±SD 29.4 ± 5.9 years. The sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively, for smartphones compared to light microscopy for total sperm counts. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were both 100%, with (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for total sperm motility were 97.9%, 100%, 100%, and 66%, respectively. For normal morphology sperm, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of smartphones were 72.7%, 82.1%, 53.3%, and 91.4%, respectively, and for abnormal morphology sperm, they were 100%, 98%, 50%, and 100%, respectively. Smartphones exhibited a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 50% for assessing sperm vitality. The diagnostic agreement between smartphones and light microscopy was very good (κ value -0.6-1) for the detection of total count, vitality, and total motility of sperm.
Conclusion: Smartphone technology demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for semen analysis compared to manual microscopy. It also shows excellent agreement with manual microscopy for most parameters in semen analysis. We recommend smartphone reporting for semen analysis in remote areas and poor resource settings.
期刊介绍:
The Arab Journal of Urology is a peer-reviewed journal that strives to provide a high standard of research and clinical material to the widest possible urological community worldwide. The journal encompasses all aspects of urology including: urological oncology, urological reconstructive surgery, urodynamics, female urology, pediatric urology, endourology, transplantation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary infections and inflammations. The journal provides reviews, original articles, editorials, surgical techniques, cases reports and correspondence. Urologists, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and scientists are invited to submit their contributions to make the Arab Journal of Urology a viable international forum for the practical, timely and state-of-the-art clinical urology and basic urological research.