| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bill.berndtson{at}unh.edu.
All approaches for quantifying treatment effects on sperm production require one or more technical assumptions. Their validity can impact the integrity of the resulting data, but most had not been subjected to thorough, critical examination. This review was undertaken to 1) identify the assumptions required with each of several popular histometric methods for quantifying treatment effects on sperm production, 2) cite examples in which each assumption had failed, 3) assess potential consequences of the failure of each technical assumption, and 4) consider safeguards by which one might avoid misleading outcomes in the event that a specific assumption did not hold.
Key words: Spermatogenesis
Testis
Histometric evaluation
Sperm production
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. E. Berndtson Replication Needed to Distinguish Alterations in Cell Ratios, the Frequency of Individual Stages of the Cycle of the Seminiferous Epithelium, or the Appearance of Abnormalities in the Testes of Rodents, Rabbits, or Humans J Androl, November 1, 2010; 31(6): 593 - 606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. E. Berndtson Replication Needed to Detect Alterations in the Composition of Rodent, Rabbit, or Human Testes via Volume Density Approaches J Androl, November 1, 2010; 31(6): 607 - 616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |