MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403842856 · doi:10.1186/s12958-024-01302-x

Non-invasively predicting euploidy in human blastocysts via quantitative 3D morphology measurement: a retrospective cohort study

2024· article· en· W4403842856 on OpenAlexafffund
Guanqiao Shan, Khaled Abdalla, Hang Liu, Changsheng Dai, Justin Tan, Junhui Law, Ang Li, Iryna Kuznyetsova, Zhuoran Zhang, Clifford Librach, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Biology and Endocrinology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreCReATe Fertility CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBlastocystInner cell massPloidyBiologyAndrologyMedicineEmbryoEmbryogenesisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Blastocyst morphology has been demonstrated to be associated with ploidy status. Existing artificial intelligence models use manual grading or 2D images as the input for euploidy prediction, which suffer from subjectivity from observers and information loss due to incomplete features from 2D images. Here we aim to predict euploidy in human blastocysts using quantitative morphological parameters obtained by 3D morphology measurement. METHODS: Multi-view images of 226 blastocysts on Day 6 were captured by manually rotating blastocysts during the preparation stage of trophectoderm biopsy. Quantitative morphological parameters were obtained by 3D morphology measurement. Six machine learning models were trained using 3D morphological parameters as the input and PGT-A results as the ground truth outcome. Model performance, including sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy and AUC, was evaluated on an additional test dataset. Model interpretation was conducted on the best-performing model. RESULTS: All the 3D morphological parameters were significantly different between euploid and non-euploid blastocysts. Multivariate analysis revealed that three of the five parameters including trophectoderm cell number, trophectoderm cell size variance and inner cell mass area maintained statistical significance (P < 0.001, aOR = 1.054, 95% CI 1.034-1.073; P = 0.003, aOR = 0.994, 95% CI 0.991-0.998; P = 0.010, aOR = 1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.006). The accuracy of euploidy prediction by the six machine learning models ranged from 80 to 95.6%, and the AUCs ranged from 0.881 to 0.984. Particularly, the decision tree model achieved the highest accuracy of 95.6% (95% CI 84.9-99.5%) with the AUC of 0.978 (95% CI 0.882-0.999), and the extreme gradient boosting model achieved the highest AUC of 0.984 (95% CI 0.892-1.000) with the accuracy of 93.3% (95% CI 81.7-98.6%). No significant difference was found between different age groups using either decision tree or extreme gradient boosting to predict euploid blastocysts. The quantitative criteria extracted from the decision tree imply that euploid blastocysts have a higher number of trophectoderm cells, larger inner cell mass area, and smaller trophectoderm cell size variance compared to non-euploid blastocysts. CONCLUSIONS: Using quantitative morphological parameters obtained by 3D morphology measurement, the decision tree-based machine learning model achieved an accuracy of 95.6% and AUC of 0.978 for predicting euploidy in Day 6 human blastocysts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive Biology and EndocrinologySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207