MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381612330 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead093.626

P-268 Artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis outperforms patient age as a surrogate marker for oocyte quality, demonstrating an increased accuracy in predicting blastocyst development

2023· article· en· W4381612330 on OpenAlexaff
N Mercuri, J Fjeldstad, Mansooreh Jaberipour, N Siddique, Dan Nayot

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystOocyteAndrologyCohortFertilityMedicineBiologyGynecologyEmbryogenesisEmbryoInternal medicinePopulationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Can an AI image analysis tool (VIOLET) provide better predictions of oocyte potential than the current standard, patient age, as it relates to blastocyst development? Summary answer While increasing patient age slightly correlates with decreases in blastocyst development, VIOLET provides personalized assessments of individual oocytes correlated to blastocyst development with improved accuracy. What is known already Increasing patient age correlates to decreases in oocyte competency, leading to greater challenges in successful fertility treatment. Clinically, patient age is used to estimate probabilities of success based on national databases. Such as the case in oocyte cryopreservation cycles, considering only age and number of mature oocytes vitrified. However, oocyte quality may vary widely between patients of the same age, and even within each cohort of oocytes. VIOLET is an AI tool that assesses images of mature denuded oocytes to provide an analysis shown to significantly correlate with subsequent blastocyst development and quality, consistently outperforming embryologists in this task. Study design, size, duration This large-scale retrospective study assessed 9,120 mature denuded oocytes retrieved during 2014-2022, representing 1,384 patients between ages 19-49, attending 7 fertility clinics across 5 countries. The VIOLET prediction model is based on image analysis of mature denuded oocytes, without incorporating clinical variables, such as age. Patient age was used to build a separate predictive model of blastocyst development (10,947 training and 3,750 validation samples) to assess the predictive value of age in comparison to VIOLET. Participants/materials, setting, methods Blastocyst development was determined by embryos achieving a Gardner grade by Day5/6 post-ICSI. Blastocyst rates per oocyte cohort were calculated by number of blastocysts divided by total number of mature oocytes retrieved. Various machine learning techniques were trialed to build the predictive model strictly using age; with Random Forest model providing the best-balanced performance. VIOLET and the age model assessed the images and age of 9,120 mature denuded oocytes, respectively, providing predictions of blastocyst development. Main results and the role of chance Blastocyst development was significantly different between patients <35 years old compared to those ≥35 years old [47% vs 42%; p < 0.05 by Two Proportion Z-test]; however, not when the older age group was stratified further. On a patient level, the cohort of oocytes was evaluated by the blastocyst development ratio. Among four age groups (<35, 35-37, 37-40, >40), the blastocyst development ratios per cohort were very similar, with overlapping distributions of 84-94% using Kernel Density estimates. Thus, patient age group does not provide enough information to explain blastocyst development success for an individual oocyte or within an oocyte cohort. In comparison, VIOLET probability is significantly correlated to blastocyst development (p < 0.05; Welch’s Two sample t-test). And blastocyst development rates display a stepwise positive correlation that is significantly different between VIOLET probability quartiles [24% vs 39% vs 47% vs 53%; p < 0.05 by Two Proportion Z-test], providing meaningful information on individual oocytes. Additionally, the predictive model built with age as the only feature had poor ability to predict blastocyst success of an individual oocyte with a limited area-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.5—unable to separate positive and negative classes. This was outperformed by VIOLET, which displayed an AUC of 0.62 on the same unseen dataset. Limitations, reasons for caution Increasing maternal age causes increased chromosomal abnormalities in oocytes, which translates to lower efficacy with treatment outcomes; therefore, further research to assess VIOLET correlation with PGT-A and implantation outcomes is needed and underway. Wider implications of the findings Patient age correlates with blastocyst development on a general level; however, it does not provide meaningful insights to distinguish rates of blastocyst success on an individual oocyte or oocyte cohort level. VIOLET augments oocyte understanding over the current standard of care, which can be utilized to support personalized clinical decision-making. Trial registration number Not applicable.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207