MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307608060 · doi:10.1101/2022.10.20.22281296

Development and evaluation of a live birth prediction model for evaluating human blastocysts: a retrospective study

2022· preprint· en· W4307608060 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hang Liu, Zhuoran Zhang, Yifan Gu, Changsheng Dai, Guanqiao Shan, Haocong Song, Daniel Li, Wen‐Yuan Chen, Ge Lin, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystLive birthReceiver operating characteristicBlastocyst TransferMedicineObstetricsGynecologyAndrologyComputer scienceBiologyMachine learningPregnancyEmbryoEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In infertility treatment, blastocyst morphological grading is commonly used in clinical practice for blastocyst evaluation and selection, but has shown limited predictive power on live birth outcomes of blastocysts. To improve live birth prediction, a number of artificial intelligence (AI) models have been established. Most existing AI models for blastocyst evaluation only used images for live birth prediction, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) achieved by these models has plateaued at ∼0.65. Methods This study proposed a multi-modal blastocyst evaluation method using both blastocyst images and patient couple’s clinical features (e.g., maternal age, hormone profiles, endometrium thickness, and semen quality) to predict live birth outcomes of human blastocysts. To utilize the multi-modal data, we developed a new AI model consisting of a convolutional neural network (CNN) to process blastocyst images and a multi-layer perceptron to process patient couple’s clinical features. The dataset used in this study consists of 17,580 blastocysts with known live birth outcomes, blastocyst images, and patient couple’s clinical features. Results This study achieved an AUC of 0.77 for live birth prediction, which significantly outperforms related works in the literature. Sixteen out of 103 clinical features were identified to be predictors of live birth outcomes and helped improve live birth prediction. Among these features, maternal age, the day of blastocyst transfer, antral follicle count, retrieved oocyte number, and endometrium thickness measured before transfer are the top five features contributing to live birth prediction. Heatmaps showed that the CNN in the AI model mainly focuses on image regions of inner cell mass and trophectoderm (TE) for live birth prediction, and the contribution of TE-related features was greater in the CNN trained with the inclusion of patient couple’s clinical features compared with the CNN trained with blastocyst images alone. Conclusions The results suggest that the inclusion of patient couple’s clinical features along with blastocyst images increases live birth prediction accuracy. Funding Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canada Research Chairs Program.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207