{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06311787072243347, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0752851711026616, 'mean_word_length': 4.576271186440678, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the semen analysis results obtained from two branded computer‐aided sperm analysis systems

The study evaluated the comparability of two branded computer‐aided sperm analysis (CASA) systems commonly used in andrology laboratories in China. The same semen sample was analysed using two branded CASA systems (WLJY‐9000 and CFT‐9200) by one well‐trained technician. Results of semen analysis obtained from two branded CASA systems were then compared. The accuracy of counting results of CASA systems was evaluated using latex bead solutions with known concentrations of (35 ± 5) × 106 ml−1 and (18 ± 2.5) × 106 ml−1. There were significant differences in all parameters (P < 0.01) except for LIN and WOB. The counting results of CFT‐9200 were close to the standard solutions [(38.86 ± 3.79) × 106 ml−1 and (19.03 ± 1.99) × 106 ml−1], while those of WLJY‐9000 were underestimated [(28.53 ± 2.06) × 106 ml−1 and (14.62 ± 0.95) × 106 ml−1]. But the coefficient of variation of WLJY‐9000 was lower than that of CFT‐9200 (7.22%, 6.50% vs. 9.82%, 10.46%). It is concluded that factors such as parameter settings and evaluation algorithms could significantly affect the results obtained from these two branded CASA systems. Great attention should also be paid to the quality control in semen analysis with CASA.