English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Assessment of sperm morphology (including morphometry) is extensively used to determine one of the qualities of a semen sample and depends on the differential staining of spermatozoa. A staining technique should cause as little change to sperm dimensions and form as possible in order to reliably evaluate the morphometric features of the sperm. Various staining techniques have been employed, but only a few have been recommended by the World Health Organization and are amenable to automated sperm morphometry analysis. Our study was aimed at comparing the effect of three staining techniques [Papanicolaou (PAP), Rapidiff (RD) and SpermBlue (SB)] on human sperm head dimensions and to compare these with the head dimensions in fresh semen.

Morphometric dimensions of the human sperm head depend on the staining method used