These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8557133)

  • 1. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part II. Determination of the working range of a computer-automated semen analyzer.
    Johnson JE; Boone WR; Blackhurst DW
    Fertil Steril; 1996 Jan; 65(1):156-9. PubMed ID: 8557133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part I. Comparison of counting chambers.
    Johnson JE; Boone WR; Blackhurst DW
    Fertil Steril; 1996 Jan; 65(1):150-5. PubMed ID: 8557132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part III. Comparison of old versus new design MicroCell Chambers.
    Johnson JE; Boone WR; Blackhurst DW
    Fertil Steril; 1996 Feb; 65(2):446-7. PubMed ID: 8566278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Comparison of four methods for sperm counting].
    Hu YA; Lu JC; Lu NQ; Shao Y; Huang YF
    Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2006 Mar; 12(3):222-4, 227. PubMed ID: 16597036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Quality evaluation of 3 sperm counting chambers by computer-assisted sperm analysis system].
    Cai J; Zeng Y; Song C; Mo ML; Yin B; Lin Q; Huang J
    Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2009 Mar; 15(3):241-3. PubMed ID: 19452697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of different counting chambers using a computer-assisted semen analyzer.
    Peng N; Zou X; Li L
    Syst Biol Reprod Med; 2015; 61(5):307-13. PubMed ID: 26214093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of manual microscopic and computer-assisted methods for analysis of sperm count and motility.
    Centola GM
    Arch Androl; 1996; 36(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 8824662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment.
    Lammers J; Splingart C; Barrière P; Jean M; Fréour T
    J Assist Reprod Genet; 2014 Jan; 31(1):35-43. PubMed ID: 24242989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of counting chamber type on CASA outcomes of equine semen analysis.
    Hoogewijs MK; de Vliegher SP; Govaere JL; de Schauwer C; de Kruif A; van Soom A
    Equine Vet J; 2012 Sep; 44(5):542-9. PubMed ID: 22150933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of commercially available chamber slides for computer-aided analysis of human sperm.
    Dardmeh F; Heidari M; Alipour H
    Syst Biol Reprod Med; 2021 Apr; 67(2):168-175. PubMed ID: 33375858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Validation of a novel computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system using multitarget-tracking algorithms.
    Tomlinson MJ; Pooley K; Simpson T; Newton T; Hopkisson J; Jayaprakasan K; Jayaprakasan R; Naeem A; Pridmore T
    Fertil Steril; 2010 Apr; 93(6):1911-20. PubMed ID: 19200972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Which fields under a coverslip should one assess to estimate sperm motility?
    Nöthling JO; dos Santos IP
    Theriogenology; 2012 May; 77(8):1686-97. PubMed ID: 22341712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Manual vs. computer-assisted sperm analysis: can CASA replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice?
    Talarczyk-Desole J; Berger A; Taszarek-Hauke G; Hauke J; Pawelczyk L; Jedrzejczak P
    Ginekol Pol; 2017; 88(2):56-60. PubMed ID: 28326513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Manual versus computer-automated semen analysis.
    Köse M; Sokmensuer LK; Demir A; Bozdag G; Gunalp S
    Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol; 2014; 41(6):662-4. PubMed ID: 25551959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of computer-assisted semen analysis in prefreeze and post-thaw specimens with high and low sperm counts and motility.
    Sidhu RS; Sharma RK; Lee JC; Agarwal A
    Urology; 1998 Feb; 51(2):306-12. PubMed ID: 9495716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Computer-assisted semen analysis: evaluation of method and assessment of the influence of sperm concentration on linear velocity determination.
    Vantman D; Koukoulis G; Dennison L; Zinaman M; Sherins RJ
    Fertil Steril; 1988 Mar; 49(3):510-5. PubMed ID: 3342904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessment of the Sperm Quality Analyzer.
    Johnston RC; Clarke GN; Liu DY; Baker HW
    Fertil Steril; 1995 May; 63(5):1071-6. PubMed ID: 7720920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accuracy and precision of computer-aided sperm analysis in multicenter studies.
    Davis RO; Rothmann SA; Overstreet JW
    Fertil Steril; 1992 Mar; 57(3):648-53. PubMed ID: 1740213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of semen preparation on casa motility results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa.
    Contri A; Valorz C; Faustini M; Wegher L; Carluccio A
    Theriogenology; 2010 Aug; 74(3):424-35. PubMed ID: 20451996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of bovine seminal quality assessments using different viewing chambers with a computer-assisted semen analyzer.
    Lenz RW; Kjelland ME; Vonderhaar K; Swannack TM; Moreno JF
    J Anim Sci; 2011 Feb; 89(2):383-8. PubMed ID: 20952528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.