MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411746747 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf097.004

O-004 Multi-center, external validation of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) model that predicts blastocyst PGT-A results from mature oocytes

2025· article· en· W4411746747 sur OpenAlexaff
N Mercuri, J Fjeldstad, S Corsac, Dan Nayot, A Krivoi

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Biology and Fertility
Établissements canadiensCReATe Fertility Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBlastocystCenter (category theory)AndrologyArtificial intelligenceGynecologyBiologyComputer scienceMedicineEmbryoChemistryGeneticsEmbryogenesis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Is a model developed to predict euploid blastocyst development from mature oocytes generalizable across varying geographic locations? Summary answer A non-invasive AI model predicts euploid blastocyst development from mature oocytes with an AUC of 0.68 on a large dataset from 5 clinics (4 countries). What is known already MAGENTA is an AI-based model that assesses mature oocyte images and provides a score (0-10) correlated to its likelihood of developing to a blastocyst-stage embryo. An additional model has been recently developed to further predict the likelihood of euploid blastocyst development from the same oocyte images yet also incorporates oocyte age and MAGENTA’s assessments as key features. This Ploidy-AI model provides additional insight reflective of the oocyte’s potential chromosomal complement–enhancing the clinical utility of assessments. With the development of a new AI model, external validation of its performance is necessary to ensure generalizability across different geographies and patient demographics. Study design, size, duration This is a retrospective study that included 13,307 images of mature oocytes obtained from 5 clinics in 4 countries (1603 patients, 1949 cycles) including Argentina (C1; mean age 32.6±7.0, BMI unavailable), Brazil (C2; mean age 38.1±3.6, BMI 38.3), Spain (C3; mean age 38.7±3.8, BMI 20.4 and C4; mean age 38.9±3.4, BMI 21.8), and USA (C5; mean age 37.2±4.1; BMI 27). Images were obtained immediately post-ICSI from Embryoscope or GERI Time-Lapse incubators between the years 2020-2024. Participants/materials, setting, methods 13,307 oocyte images were assessed by MAGENTA and the Ploidy-AI model to predict each oocyte’s likelihood of developing into a euploid blastocyst (0-100%). Oocytes that did not develop into a blastocyst (n = 7385) or those that developed into an aneuploid blastocyst (n = 3534) were labelled the negative outcome, whereas those that developed into euploid blastocysts (n = 2388) were labeled the positive outcome. Untested or mosaic blastocysts were excluded. Main results and the role of chance On 13,307 mature oocytes, the Ploidy-AI model achieved an AUC of 0.68, sensitivity 0.54, and specificity 0.71. Oocytes that failed blastulation or developed into an aneuploid blastocyst had significantly lower median model-predicted euploid probability (n = 10,919, 0.20) than those that developed into an euploid blastocyst (n = 2388, 0.28) by Mann-Whitney U-test (p < 0.001). Additionally, model-predicted euploid probabilities were divided into quartiles (Q) according to the distribution within this dataset—Q1 (n = 3327), Q2 (n = 3327), Q3 (n = 3326), Q4 (n = 3327). A significant, stepwise positive increase in true euploid development rate for oocytes within each quartile of model-predicted probabilities was observed by pairwise-proportions test with Bonferroni correction (all p < 0.001): Q1(6%), Q2(14%), Q3(22%), and Q4(30%). Subgroup analysis by Clinic revealed consistent performance across all 5 clinics; C1 (n = 1643) – AUC 0.66, sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.54; C2 (n = 7239) – AUC 0.68, sensitivity 0.51, specificity 0.72; C3 (n = 2442) – AUC 0.72, sensitivity 0.49, specificity 0.80; C4 (n = 802) – AUC 0.68, sensitivity 0.46, specificity 0.76; C5 (n = 1181) – AUC 0.66, sensitivity 0.61, specificity 0.62. The Ploidy-AI model performance was significantly higher on C3 than C1 (p < 0.001), C2 (p < 0.01), C5 (p < 0.01), and the overall dataset (p < 0.01) by DeLong’s test; however, no significant differences were observed in the other clinic-to-clinic or clinic-to-overall dataset comparisons. Limitations, reasons for caution The model displayed significantly higher performance on C3 compared to three other clinics, although model performance on the remaining clinics was similar and comparable to the overall dataset AUC. Further validating the model in additional geographies may ensure greater application. This study was retrospective in nature, prospective evaluation is warranted. Wider implications of the findings External validation of newly developed AI models is critical prior to clinical utilization. Large, diverse datasets, as in this study, ensure model generalization. This study presents a robust validation of a model that predicts blastocyst ploidy development from mature oocytes and is consistent across various clinic locations in different countries. Trial registration number No

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,138
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,765

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,108
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive Biology and FertilityTravaux en français237 207