Journal of Andrology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davis, R. O.
Right arrow Articles by Gravance, C. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davis, R. O.
Right arrow Articles by Gravance, C. G.

Journal of Andrology, Vol 15, Issue 1 83-91, Copyright © 1994 by The American Society of Andrology

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Consistency of sperm morphology classification methods

R. O. Davis and C. G. Gravance
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California-Davis 95616.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently suggested new morphometric dimensions for normal sperm heads and new sperm head classification rules. These specifications differ from previous WHO methods and from the Kruger method for strict morphology assessment. We analyzed the WHO and Kruger sperm classification rules to determine their appropriateness as predictive linear models. We reviewed the theoretical requirements for allometric modeling, a more traditional approach for specifying the size relationships between phenotypic characters, and developed valid allometric models based on the statistical properties of over 3,700 measurements of individual sperm head dimensions. We implemented the WHO, Kruger, and Allometric methods on the same set of digitized sperm heads to study the empirical consequences of different metric requirements and classification methods. Results show that the WHO and Kruger methods are internally consistent, but specify nonconstant variance. Hence, they are inappropriate linear models. The allometric models were internally consistent and specified constant variance. Hence, they are appropriate linear models. Significant differences were found in the percentage of normal sperm between the methods. On average, the Kruger method produced the lowest value and the Allometric methods produced significantly higher values than the WHO methods, but no average difference was found between WHO methods or between Allometric methods. Nevertheless, the percentage of normal sperm did change significantly for individual specimens. These results indicate that small differences in metric requirements and classification rules can dramatically change the percentage of normal sperm. Until more rigorous definitions of sperm features can be developed, and valid statistical models can be used to describe the population characteristics of fertile sperm, the prognostic value of sperm morphology is limited.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J AndrolHome page
A. A. El-Ghobashy and C. R. West
The Human Sperm Head: A Key for Successful Fertilization
J Androl, March 1, 2003; 24(2): 232 - 238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
D.R. Franken, M. Smith, R. Menkveld, T.F. Kruger, C. Sekadde-Kigondu, M. Mbizvo, and E.O. Akande
The development of a continuous quality control programme for strict sperm morphology among sub-Saharan African laboratories
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2000; 15(3): 667 - 671.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
G. Barroso, R. Mercan, K. Ozgur, M. Morshedi, P. Kolm, K. Coetzee, T. Kruger, and S. Oehninger
Intra- and inter-laboratory variability in the assessment of sperm morphology by strict criteria: impact of semen preparation, staining techniques and manual versus computerized analysis
Hum. Reprod., August 1, 1999; 14(8): 2036 - 2040.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by The American Society of Andrology.