An artificial intelligence model correlated with morphological and genetic features of blastocyst quality improves ranking of viable embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION: Can better methods be developed to evaluate the performance and characteristics of an artificial intelligence model for evaluating the likelihood of clinical pregnancy based on analysis of day-5 blastocyst-stage embryos, such that performance evaluation more closely reflects clinical use in IVF procedures, and correlations with known features of embryo quality are identified? DESIGN: De-identified images were provided retrospectively or collected prospectively by IVF clinics using the artificial intelligence model in clinical practice. A total of 9359 images were provided by 18 IVF clinics across six countries, from 4709 women who underwent IVF between 2011 and 2021. Main outcome measures included clinical pregnancy outcome (fetal heartbeat at first ultrasound scan), embryo morphology score, and/or pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) results. RESULTS: A positive linear correlation of artificial intelligence scores with pregnancy outcomes was found, and up to a 12.2% reduction in time to pregnancy (TTP) was observed when comparing the artificial intelligence model with standard morphological grading methods using a novel simulated cohort ranking method. Artificial intelligence scores were significantly correlated with known morphological features of embryo quality based on the Gardner score, and with previously unknown morphological features associated with embryo ploidy status, including chromosomal abnormalities indicative of severity when considering embryos for transfer during IVF. CONCLUSION: Improved methods for evaluating artificial intelligence for embryo selection were developed, and advantages of the artificial intelligence model over current grading approaches were highlighted, strongly supporting the use of the artificial intelligence model in a clinical setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".