MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362498961 · doi:10.7554/elife.83662.sa2

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

2023· peer-review· en· W4362498961 on OpenAlexaff
Hang Liu, Zhuoran Zhang, Yifan Gu, Changsheng Dai, Guanqiao Shan, Haocong Song, Daniel Li, Wen‐Yuan Chen, Ge Lin, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystLive birthReceiver operating characteristicComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMedicineObstetricsGynecologyBiologyPregnancyEmbryoEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than 50 million couples worldwide experience infertility. The most common treatment is in vitro fertilization (IVF). Fertility specialists collect eggs and sperm from the prospective parents. They combine the egg and sperm in a laboratory and allow the fertilized eggs to develop for five days into a multi-celled blastocyst. Then, the specialists select the healthiest blastocysts and return them to the patient's uterus. Since 1978, more than 8 million children have been conceived through IVF. Yet, only about 30% of IVF attempts result in a successful birth. As a result, fertility patients often undergo multiple rounds of IVF, which can be expensive and emotionally draining. Several factors determine IVF success, one of which is the health of the blastocysts selected for transfer to the uterus. Specialists select the blastocysts using several criteria. But these human assessments are subjective and inconsistent in predicting which ones are most likely to result in a successful birth. Recent studies suggest artificial intelligence technology may help select blastocysts. Liu et al. show that using artificial intelligence to assess blastocysts and fertility patient characteristics leads to more accurate predictions about which blastocysts are likely to result in a successful birth. In the experiments, the researchers trained an artificial intelligence computer program using pictures of 17,580 blastocysts with known birth outcomes and the parents' clinical characteristics. The model identified 16 parental factors associated with birth outcomes. The top 5 most predictive parental factors were maternal age, the day of blastocyst transfer to the uterus, how many eggs were present in the ovaries, the number of eggs retrieved and the thickness of the uterus lining. The program achieved the highest prediction of healthy births so far, compared to success rates listed in other studies. Artificial intelligence-aided blastocyte selection using patient and blastocyst characteristics may improve IVF success rates and reduce the number of treatment cycles patient couples undergo. Before specialists can use artificial intelligence in their clinics, they must conduct confirmatory clinical studies that enroll patient couples to compare conventional methods and artificial intelligence.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→