MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4400296949 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deae108.025

O-025 An artificial intelligence (AI) model non-invasively evaluates endometrial receptivity from ultrasound images, surpassing endometrial thickness (EMT) in predicting implantation

2024· article· en· W4400296949 sur OpenAlexaff
J Fjeldstad, Qi Wu, N Siddique, N Mercuri, A Krivoi, Dan Nayot

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueReproductive System and Pregnancy
Établissements canadiensCReATe Fertility Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésUltrasoundEndometriumMedicineGynecologyObstetricsRadiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Can an AI image-based model be trained to predict whether an endometrium, prior to progesterone, is receptive for successful embryo implantation from ultrasound images? Summary answer An endometrial receptivity AI model, utilizing ultrasound images and clinical features, is predictive of successful implantation and outperforms endometrial thickness as a predictor of implantation. What is known already Despite its importance in successful embryo implantation and subsequent live birth, endometrial receptivity is difficult to measure. The standard of care at some clinics is to cancel an embryo transfer if EMT is measuring less than 7 mm on ultrasound assessment – however, achieving an EMT threshold does not guarantee success, even with euploid blastocysts. Currently available receptivity tests (e.g. endometrial receptivity assays) are unreliable and have not shown significant improvements in reproductive outcomes, necessitating the development of new evaluation methods for endometrial receptivity. AI can potentially address this gap in clinical care and understanding, aiming to increase patient success. Study design, size, duration 79,602 ultrasound images (40,910 patients) of the endometrium, on the day of progesterone start according to patient’s frozen embryo transfer cycle, were retrospectively collected from 4 clinic networks including 70 clinic locations. PGT-A outcomes and blastocyst quality were available for 15,466 and 36,070 blastocysts respectively, with 14,538 having labels for both. Different image samples (based on embryo quality) were selected to train and test several AI models, with implantation (positive beta-hCG) as a binary outcome. Participants/materials, setting, methods Three criteria for negative (implantation) class sample selection were tested for receptivity model development: 1) high- or medium-quality and/or euploid blastocysts; 2) high-quality blastocysts; 3) all blastocysts. Models were ensembles consisting of an image-based deep learning (DL)-model and a feature-based machine learning (ML)-model. Model performance was measured by Area-under-the-curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Feature importance from the ML model was assessed, while receptivity model performance was compared to the power of EMT to predict implantation. Main results and the role of chance A receptivity model trained on scenario 1) (n = 27,424) achieved AUC 0.613, sensitivity 0.716, and specificity 0.439 on a test set of 9197 samples, in predicting implantation. Another receptivity model trained on scenario 2) (n = 25,625) achieved AUC 0.627, sensitivity 0.637, and specificity 0.543 on a test set of 8642. Whereas a third receptivity model trained on scenario 3) (n = 31,238) was selected for further analysis as it attained the best performance with AUC 0.631, sensitivity 0.628, and specificity 0.556 on a test set of 10,422. The ensemble model also utilizes relevant clinical features, which were ranked by importance to model predictions: EMT; progesterone blood test value; age at transfer; previous total embryo transfers; days between ultrasound date and transfer date; age at retrieval; and oocyte origin. EMT was assessed for its ability to predict implantation at thresholds between 5–20 mm. The threshold that best separates positive and negative implantation was determined by evaluating AUC on a validation set of 5682. A threshold of 8.8 mm achieved an AUC 0.576, sensitivity 0.694, and specificity 0.455 in predicting implantation on a test set of 5686. However, the receptivity model AUC (0.631) was significantly higher (p < 0.001; DeLong test for differences in AUC), outperforming EMT predictability. Limitations, reasons for caution The endometrial receptivity model was built and tested on retrospective frozen embryo transfer data. Results should be corroborated in prospective and non-selection studies, as well as in multiple geographical locations (all clinics included reside in the United States). The dataset requires greater diversification, with a greater representation of EMT (<7mm). Wider implications of the findings This study indicates that an AI model can be built to predict implantation from ultrasound images and clinical features, surpassing current standards - EMT alone. Further experimentation, with additional clinical features, may improve performance to facilitate development of a model that can accurately predict the gold-standard of live birth. Trial registration number Not applicable

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive System and PregnancyTravaux en français237 207