Segmentation of mature human oocytes provides interpretable and improved blastocyst outcome predictions by a machine learning model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the medical field of human assisted reproductive technology, a method for interpretable, non-invasive, and objective oocyte evaluation is lacking. To address this clinical gap, a workflow utilizing machine learning techniques has been developed involving automatic multi-class segmentation of two-dimensional images, morphometric analysis, and prediction of developmental outcomes of mature denuded oocytes based on feature extraction and clinical variables. Two separate models have been developed for this purpose-a model to perform multiclass segmentation, and a classifier model to classify oocytes as likely or unlikely to develop into a blastocyst (Day 5-7 embryo). The segmentation model is highly accurate at segmenting the oocyte, ensuring high-quality segmented images (masks) are utilized as inputs for the classifier model (mask model). The mask model displayed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.63, a sensitivity of 0.51, and a specificity of 0.66 on the test set. The AUC underwent a reduction to 0.57 when features extracted from the ooplasm were removed, suggesting the ooplasm holds the information most pertinent to oocyte developmental competence. The mask model was further compared to a deep learning model, which also utilized the segmented images as inputs. The performance of both models combined in an ensemble model was evaluated, showing an improvement (AUC 0.67) compared to either model alone. The results of this study indicate that direct assessments of the oocyte are warranted, providing the first objective insights into key features for developmental competence, a step above the current standard of care-solely utilizing oocyte age as a proxy for quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".