MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391070546 · doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103842

An artificial intelligence tool predicts blastocyst development from static images of fresh mature oocytes

2024· article· en· W4391070546 on OpenAlexaff
Jullin Fjeldstad, Weikai Qi, N Mercuri, Nadia Siddique, Jim Meriano, Alex Krivoi, Dan Nayot

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive BioMedicine Online · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreOttawa Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryBlastocystFertilityCross-validationArtificial intelligenceAndrologyStatisticsMedicineMachine learningComputer scienceBiologyMathematicsEmbryoPopulationEmbryogenesisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a deep learning image analysis model be developed to assess oocyte quality by predicting blastocyst development from images of denuded mature oocytes? DESIGN: A deep learning model was developed utilizing 37,133 static oocyte images with associated laboratory outcomes from eight fertility clinics (six countries). A subset of data (n = 7807) was allocated to test model performance. External model validation was conducted to assess generalizability and robustness on new data (n = 12,357) from two fertility clinics (two countries). Performance was assessed by calculating area under the curve (AUC), balanced accuracy, specificity and sensitivity. Subgroup analyses were performed on the test dataset for age group, male factor and geographical location of the clinic. Model probabilities of the external dataset were converted to a 0-10 scoring scale to facilitate analysis of correlation with blastocyst development and quality. RESULTS: The deep learning model demonstrated AUC of 0.64, balanced accuracy of 0.60, specificity of 0.55 and sensitivity of 0.65 on the test dataset. Subgroup analyses displayed the highest performance for age group 38-39 years (AUC 0.68), a negligible impact of male factor, and good model generalizability across geographical locations. Model performance was confirmed on external data: AUC of 0.63, balanced accuracy of 0.58, specificity of 0.57 and sensitivity of 0.59. Analysis of the scoring scale revealed that higher scoring oocytes correlated with higher likelihood of blastocyst development and good-quality blastocyst formation. CONCLUSION: The deep learning model showed a favourable performance for the evaluation of oocytes in terms of competence to develop into a blastocyst, and when the predictions were converted into scores, they correlated with blastocyst quality. This represents a significant first step in oocyte evaluation for scientific and clinical applications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.333
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

Citations37
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive BioMedicine OnlineSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207