Back

Validation of the AndroWash Automated System for Standardized and Efficient Sperm Preparation in Assisted Reproductive Technology

Sahu, S.; Rajput, V.; Mishra, H. M.; Sahu, B.

2025-12-04 sexual and reproductive health
10.64898/2025.11.29.25341236 medRxiv
Show abstract

Sperm preparation is a critical, yet highly operator-dependent, step in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) workflows, often leading to variability in Total Motile Sperm Count (TMSC) recovery and prolonged processing times. The AndroWash automated system was developed to address these limitations by standardizing the density gradient centrifugation process. This study aimed to validate the performance of the AndroWash system against conventional manual sperm washing across five critical user-need claims: reduced operator errors and variability, faster and easier gradient layering, preservation of sperm quality (motility and DNA integrity), standardized discard step, and reduced end-to-end processing time. A comparative validation study was conducted involving ten operators (five novice, five expert), each performing multiple trials with both the conventional manual method and the AndroWash system. Key metrics included error rate, TMSC coefficient of variation (CV), System Usability Scale (SUS) score, layering time, post-wash progressive motility, DNA Fragmentation Index (DFI), and total workflow time. AndroWash demonstrated significant superiority across all claims. It reduced the mean error rate by approximately 73.0% and halved the TMSC CV from 17.91% to 10.60%. Layering time was reduced by 5x (from 10.0 min to 2.0 min), with a corresponding increase in user-perceived ease of use. Post-wash progressive motility was higher with AndroWash (86.84% vs. 78.58% for conventional), and DFI was lower (4.4% vs. 5.3%), indicating superior sperm quality preservation. The total end-to-end processing time was reduced by 44%, from 35.5 minutes to 19.8 minutes. The AndroWash automated system provides a reliable, efficient, and user-friendly alternative to conventional sperm preparation methods. Its ability to minimize operator-induced variability, preserve sperm quality, and significantly reduce workflow time supports its adoption as a new standard for sperm preparation in clinical ART settings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.9%
2
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.3%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.8%
4
Human Reproduction
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
6
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.2%
7
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
8
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
9
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
10
HardwareX
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.6%
13
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
14
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
15
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
16
Talanta
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.3%
18
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
22
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
24
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
27
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
28
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
30
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%