Development and evaluation of a live birth prediction model for evaluating human blastocysts from a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
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 multimodal 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 multimodal data, we developed a new AI model consisting of a convolutional neural network (CNN) to process blastocyst images and a multilayer perceptron to process patient couple's clinical features. The data set 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".