Input
A sperm image or video is analysed by a digital system.
AI-assisted sperm selection refers to emerging technologies designed to analyse motility, morphology and other visible features in microscopic images using algorithms, providing decision support to the embryologist.

Algorithms are limited by the dataset and device used. For many systems, clinical impact, external validation and live-birth outcomes have not yet been demonstrated sufficiently.
A sperm image or video is analysed by a digital system.
Motility, shape, track and some visible characteristics may be classified algorithmically.
The system may provide the embryologist with candidate-cell rankings or quality scores.
Outcomes such as DNA integrity and live birth cannot be determined with certainty from an image.
The term covers different devices and software platforms; it is not one standardised method.
A camera and image-processing system tracks, measures or classifies sperm cells. The final clinical decision is made by the trained embryologist and treatment team.
AI is being studied for tasks such as sperm counting, motility tracking, morphology classification and ranking candidate cells for ICSI according to image features.
Good performance on an algorithm's development dataset does not mean it will produce the same result with a different microscope, camera, patient group or laboratory. External validation and prospective clinical studies are required.
Image-based systems do not directly see sperm DNA integrity, chromosome structure or future embryo development. Algorithm output should therefore not be presented as a definitive label of biological quality.
The two approaches are not necessarily alternatives; in suitable systems they may complement each other.
Motility, appearance and procedural suitability are assessed under the microscope.
Performs measurement and classification on digital images.
Use a human-supervised decision-support model that has been validated in the laboratory and whose outcomes are monitored.
Use depends on the device's approved purpose and the laboratory's validation.
Image analysis supporting sperm count and motility measurement.
Supporting a standardised assessment of sperm shape.
Ranking a large number of candidate cells according to image characteristics.
Monitoring observer variability and supporting training.
Studying relationships between image characteristics, DNA damage and embryo outcomes.
When final selection is confirmed by the embryologist.
No. Routine use of systems without demonstrated clinical benefit or live-birth advantage should be justified carefully.
Technical and clinical validation are required before the technology is used.
The exact model version in use is documented.
Magnification, lighting and image quality are standardised.
Model performance is checked using the laboratory's own samples.
Algorithm output is compared with assessment by experienced embryologists.
Access rules for images and patient data are defined.
Fertilisation, embryo development and clinical outcomes are monitored.
Although systems differ, the general workflow consists of image capture, analysis and human verification.
Sperm cells are prepared using an appropriate laboratory method.
A microscope camera records photographs or video.
The algorithm separates sperm cells from the background.
If video is used, cell trajectories and speeds are calculated.
Visible head, midpiece and tail characteristics are classified.
The system may assign probability or quality scores to candidate cells.
Suitability and viability are confirmed by a person.
Algorithm outputs and clinical outcomes are retained within the quality system.
Analysis is integrated into the laboratory workflow and does not create a separate treatment day.
Standard sperm preparation is completed.
Images are recorded rapidly through the camera and software.
Depending on the system, this may take seconds or minutes.
The embryologist reassesses the candidate cells.
The selected sperm can be used on the same day.
Data and outcome monitoring are added to the system.
No additional travel or stay is required; it is part of the IVF/ICSI laboratory process.
Algorithmic accuracy and clinical benefit are not the same thing.
A model may perform well only on data similar to the examples it has seen.
Performance may fall when imaging hardware changes.
The expert labels used during training define the model's limits.
Different sperm abnormalities and sample types affect generalisability.
Independent testing at other centres is required.
Validation against fertilisation, pregnancy and live-birth data is important.
Correctly classifying a sperm cell does not mean an algorithm increases the live-birth rate.
Technology costs vary according to the software, device, licence and laboratory-use model.
System or annual-use licence.
Camera, microscope integration and workstation.
Local testing and quality-control studies.
Imaging and human verification.
The technology is most often added to the ICSI process.
Storage, access and maintenance requirements.
We can assess the clinical purpose of the system, the level of evidence and whether it adds meaningful cost in your case.
Algorithm output should be linked within the laboratory quality system to the device, software version, operator and patient record.
A software update may change performance.
Microscope, camera and imaging conditions are standardised.
The embryologist is responsible for the final decision and management of exceptions.
Misclassification and clinical outcomes are tracked.
Images are stored in a secure, authorised system.
The purpose of the technology and the limits of the evidence are explained to the patient.

Technology decisions are a shared responsibility of the clinician, scientific leadership and embryology laboratory.

Assesses the clinical contribution of the technology to the couple's treatment plan.
View profile →
Oversees the framework for evidence, ethics, consent and quality management.
View profile →
Manages imaging, algorithm output, human verification and ICSI implementation.
View profile →AI does not replace the urological diagnosis of male infertility or hormonal and genetic assessment.
Algorithmic systems involve biological and technical uncertainty.
Training data may not adequately represent certain patient groups.
Performance at one centre may not transfer to another laboratory.
A high score is not a guarantee of healthy DNA or live birth.
Software updates can change results.
Patient images and data must be protected.
It may create an additional routine charge before clinical benefit has been established.
Real-world uses and evidence limitations of an emerging technology.
These systems analyse sperm images with algorithms to provide measurement or ranking support to the embryologist.
It analyses visible image features; it cannot determine DNA or genetic health with certainty.
No. The final decision and procedure should remain under human supervision.
For many systems, a live-birth advantage has not yet been demonstrated sufficiently.
DNA breaks cannot be seen directly in standard images; some research models attempt to predict them.
Some digital systems can analyse sperm count and motility.
It may be used as decision support when ranking candidate sperm cells.
No. Devices, models and software versions differ.
Local laboratory validation, human comparison and clinical outcome monitoring are required.
The system's data-storage, access and anonymisation policies should be explained.
There may be an additional cost depending on the system; the clinical benefit should be explained clearly.
No. It is integrated into the IVF or ICSI laboratory day.
Causes, diagnosis and personalised treatment options for male-factor infertility.
Standard laboratory assessment of sperm count, motility, morphology, volume and sample quality.
Distinguishing absence of sperm in the ejaculate due to obstruction from impaired sperm production.
Searching for sperm in testicular tissue and preparing suitable samples for ICSI.
Targeted tissue selection under the microscope, particularly in non-obstructive azoospermia.
Preparation of motile sperm cells using microfluidic channels.
This technology is an emerging decision-support field. An algorithm score should not be interpreted as a medical diagnosis, a measure of genetic health or a guarantee of live birth.
We can explain what the software measures, which clinical outcomes have been used to validate it and what it adds to conventional embryologist selection.
This content has been prepared in line with semen-analysis standards and the cautious approach in the ASRM 2026 committee opinion on the use of artificial intelligence in the IVF laboratory.