Gold-standard for computer-assisted morphological sperm analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Published algorithms for classification of human sperm heads are based on relatively small image databases that are not open to the public, and thus no direct comparison is available for competing methods. We describe a gold-standard for morphological sperm analysis (SCIAN-MorphoSpermGS), a dataset of sperm head images with expert-classification labels in one of the following classes: normal, tapered, pyriform, small or amorphous. This gold-standard is for evaluating and comparing known techniques and future improvements to present approaches for classification of human sperm heads for semen analysis. Although this paper does not provide a computational tool for morphological sperm analysis, we present a set of experiments for comparing sperm head description and classification common techniques. This classification base-line is aimed to be used as a reference for future improvements to present approaches for human sperm head classification. METHODS The gold-standard provides a label for each sperm head, which is achieved by majority voting among experts. The classification base-line compares four supervised learning methods (1- Nearest Neighbor, naive Bayes, decision trees and Support Vector Machine (SVM)) and three shape-based descriptors (Hu moments, Zernike moments and Fourier descriptors), reporting the accuracy and the true positive rate for each experiment. We used Fleiss' Kappa Coefficient to evaluate the inter-expert agreement and Fisher's exact test for inter-expert variability and statistical significant differences between descriptors and learning techniques. RESULTS Our results confirm the high degree of inter-expert variability in the morphological sperm analysis. Regarding the classification base line, we show that none of the standard descriptors or classification approaches is best suitable for tackling the problem of sperm head classification. We discovered that the correct classification rate was highly variable when trying to discriminate among non-normal sperm heads. By using the Fourier descriptor and SVM, we achieved the best mean correct classification: only 49%. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that the SCIAN-MorphoSpermGS will provide a standard tool for evaluation of characterization and classification approaches for human sperm heads. Indeed, there is a clear need for a specific shape-based descriptor for human sperm heads and a specific classification approach to tackle the problem of high variability within subcategories of abnormal sperm cells.

[1]  Sameer Singh,et al.  A Benchmark for Indoor/Outdoor Scene Classification , 2005, ICAPR.

[2]  P Memmolo,et al.  Identification of bovine sperm head for morphometry analysis in quantitative phase-contrast holographic microscopy. , 2011, Optics express.

[3]  J. Dumoulin,et al.  Evaluation of human sperm morphology using strict criteria after Diff-Quik staining: correlation of morphology with fertilization in vitro. , 1991, Human reproduction.

[4]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition , 1998, Proc. IEEE.

[5]  Gerardo Hermosillo,et al.  Supervised learning from multiple experts: whom to trust when everyone lies a bit , 2009, ICML '09.

[6]  A. Tamilarasi,et al.  A Comparative Study on Human Spermatozoa Images Classification with Artificial Neural Network Based on FOS, GLCM and Morphological Features , 2011 .

[7]  P Memmolo,et al.  Digital holography as a method for 3D imaging and estimating the biovolume of motile cells. , 2013, Lab on a chip.

[8]  C. Lombard,et al.  Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. , 1986, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  F. Zernike How I discovered phase contrast. , 1955, Science.

[10]  J. Auger Assessing human sperm morphology: top models, underdogs or biometrics? , 2010, Asian journal of andrology.

[11]  M. Teague Image analysis via the general theory of moments , 1980 .

[12]  C. Soler,et al.  Use of the Sperm-Class Analyser for objective assessment of human sperm morphology. , 2003, International journal of andrology.

[13]  Emine Aksoy,et al.  Assessment of Spermatozoa Morphology under Light Microscopy with Different Histologic Stains and Comparison of Morphometric Measurements , 2012 .

[14]  Terence Sim,et al.  The CMU Pose, Illumination, and Expression Database , 2003, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[15]  King-Sun Fu,et al.  Shape Discrimination Using Fourier Descriptors , 1977, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[16]  M V Boland,et al.  Automated recognition of patterns characteristic of subcellular structures in fluorescence microscopy images. , 1998, Cytometry.

[17]  Bernhard E. Boser,et al.  A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers , 1992, COLT '92.

[18]  B H Mayall,et al.  Quantification and classification of human sperm morphology by computer-assisted image analysis. , 1988, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  E. L. Lewis,et al.  Morphometric analysis of spermatozoa in the assessment of human male fertility. , 1986, Journal of andrology.

[20]  Seyed Abolghasem Mirroshandel,et al.  An efficient method for automatic morphological abnormality detection from human sperm images , 2015, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[21]  Georgios Dounias,et al.  Pap-smear Benchmark Data For Pattern Classification , 2005 .

[22]  Roelof Menkveld,et al.  Sperm morphology assessment using strict (tygerberg) criteria. , 2013, Methods in molecular biology.

[23]  G. Bartsch,et al.  Spermiometrics: objective and reproducible methods for evaluating sperm morphology. , 1982, European urology.

[24]  R. Z. Gold,et al.  The male factor in fertility and infertility. IV. Sperm morphology in fertile and infertile marriage. , 1951, Fertility and sterility.

[25]  J. Lammers,et al.  Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment , 2013, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[26]  J. Fleiss Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[27]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts , 2010, 2010 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology.

[28]  W. Yi,et al.  Parameterized characterization of elliptic sperm heads using Fourier representation and wavelet transform , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Vol.20 Biomedical Engineering Towards the Year 2000 and Beyond (Cat. No.98CH36286).

[29]  C. Soler,et al.  Morphometric analysis of human sperm morphology. , 1994, International journal of andrology.

[30]  Ming-Huei Lin,et al.  Sperm morphology analysis using strict criteria as a prognostic factor in intrauterine insemination. , 2002, International journal of andrology.

[31]  Weiyuan Cui,et al.  Mother or nothing: the agony of infertility. , 2010, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[32]  Guojun Lu,et al.  Review of shape representation and description techniques , 2004, Pattern Recognit..

[33]  Antonios Gasteratos,et al.  Evaluation of shape descriptors for shape-based image retrieval , 2011 .

[34]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  Computational Pathology: Challenges and Promises for Tissue Analysis , 2015, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[35]  Nancy Hitschfeld-Kahler,et al.  Gold-standard and improved framework for sperm head segmentation , 2014, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[36]  Ralph Roskies,et al.  Fourier Descriptors for Plane Closed Curves , 1972, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[37]  J. Jagoe,et al.  Morphometry of spermatozoa using semiautomatic image analysis. , 1986, Journal of clinical pathology.

[38]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  From Aardvark to Zorro: A Benchmark for Mammal Image Classification , 2008, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[39]  Ming-Kuei Hu,et al.  Visual pattern recognition by moment invariants , 1962, IRE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[40]  Roelof Menkveld,et al.  Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. , 2011, Asian journal of andrology.

[41]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  Shape Classification and Analysis: Theory and Practice , 2009 .

[42]  G. L. Moench,et al.  Sperm morphology in relation to fertility , 1931 .

[43]  Robert F. Murphy,et al.  A neural network classifier capable of recognizing the patterns of all major subcellular structures in fluorescence microscope images of HeLa cells , 2001, Bioinform..

[44]  Mark W. Schmidt,et al.  Modeling annotator expertise: Learning when everybody knows a bit of something , 2010, AISTATS.

[45]  T. Kobayashi,et al.  Sperm morphological assessment based on strict criteria and in-vitro fertilization outcome. , 1991, Human reproduction.

[46]  Jan C M Hendriks,et al.  Use of computerized karyometric image analysis for evaluation of human spermatozoa. , 2002, Journal of andrology.

[47]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[48]  J. L. Hodges,et al.  Discriminatory Analysis - Nonparametric Discrimination: Consistency Properties , 1989 .