表 2. Artificial intelligence models for sperm screening.
用于精子筛选的人工智能模型
| Source | Time | Model | Target | Sperm observation method | Performance |
| CNN: convolutional neural network; SVM: support vector machine; HE: hematoxylin-eosin staining; MAE: mean absolute error. | |||||
| ILHAN H O, et al.[19] | 2020 | CNN | Morphology | HE staining | The highest accuracy rate reached 87%. |
| MIRSKY S K, et al.[23] | 2017 | SVM | Morphology | Interference microscope | The precision exceeded 90%. |
| RIORDON J, et al.[24] | 2019 | CNN | Morphology | HuSHeM, SCIAN dataset | The accuracy rate reached 94.1% (HuSHeM) and 62.0% (SCIAN). |
| JAVADI S, et al.[18] | 2019 | CNN | Morphology | MHSMA dataset | The accuracy rate reached 84.74% (acrosome), 83.86% (head), and 94.65% (vacuole). |
| NOY L, et al.[25] | 2023 | CNN | DNA | Acridine orange staining | The MAE was 0.05. |
| McCALLUM C, et al.[21] | 2019 | CNN | DNA | Acridine orange staining | The accuracy rate for prediction in 10 ms reached 86%. |
| WANG Y, et al.[20] | 2019 | Regression model | DNA | Acridine orange staining | The accuracy rate reached 82.7%. |
| VALIUŠKAITĖ V, et al.[26] | 2020 | R-CNN | Movement | VISEM database | The accuracy rate reached 91.77% and the MAE was 2.92. |
| HICKS S A, et al.[27] | 2019 | CNN | Movement | VISEM database | The lowest MAE was 8.786. |
| GOODSON S G, et al.[28] | 2017 | SVM | Movement | CASA analysis | The accuracy rate was 89.9%. |
| LEE R, et al.[29] | 2022 | U-Net | Testicular sperm sampling |
LIVE/DEAD fixable aqua dead cell staining |
The sensitivity was 86.1% and the F1 score was 85.2%. |