MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047767764 · doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000072

Time-lapse embryo imaging technology

2014· review· en· W2047767764 on OpenAlexaff
Necati Fındıklı, Engin Oral

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryoScope (computer science)Embryo qualitySelection (genetic algorithm)MedicineEmbryo cultureRisk analysis (engineering)Biochemical engineeringComputer scienceCryopreservationBiologyEmbryogenesisArtificial intelligenceCell biologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the review is to summarize recent developments in time-lapse technologies and early embryo morphokinetics and to discuss their impact on current clinical outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary embryo culture and selection methodologies that are based on classical morphology are clearly limited in providing the most suitable embryo for a successful pregnancy. Noninvasive observation of embryo development by capturing the images with a time-lapse device has recently been proposed to be a better method of embryo viability assessment. Such methodologies have been shown to increase the quality and the quantity of information on the viability without disturbing the culture conditions. SUMMARY: Commercial availability of different time-lapse devices for human embryos facilitated the use of morphokinetics as an additional tool in human embryo selection. The application of such technologies has already shown positive results on clinical outcome by increasing our scope of traditional embryo selection, leading to higher implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. Additional benefit can come from the less-disturbed incubation environment that is created by all-in-one incubators. Such devices can also be very important research tools in order to observe and analyze the effect of different patient-specific or clinical conditions on embryo development parameters that are not available through classical embryo scoring.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207