MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411745708 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf097.005

O-005 Advancement of a novel image-analysis artificial intelligence (AI) model to predict blastocyst ploidy development of mature oocytes

2025· article· en· W4411745708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J Fjeldstad, N Mercuri, Qi Wu, Dan Nayot, A Krivoi

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystAndrologyArtificial intelligencePloidyBiologyEmbryogenesisEmbryoGynecologyComputer scienceCell biologyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Leveraging analysis by MAGENTA, can an additional AI model be developed to specifically predict the ploidy status (euploid/aneuploid) of individual mature oocytes in a cohort? Summary answer A non-invasive image-analysis Ploidy-AI model was developed to predict the likelihood of euploid blastocyst development of mature oocytes with an AUC of 0.71. What is known already MAGENTA is an AI-based model that assesses images of mature oocytes and provides a score (0-10) correlated to its likelihood of developing to a blastocyst-stage embryo, however research also shows correlation to blastocyst-ploidy (euploid/aneuploid) outcomes. Unlike sperm, the oocyte is responsible for most blastocyst-stage aneuploidies, as chromosome segregation during female meiosis is highly susceptible to errors, which increases with age. As such, a model trained to specifically predict the likelihood of a mature oocyte to develop into a euploid blastocyst, from a patient’s cohort of oocytes, could indicate greater clinical value regarding the quality and developmental potential of these oocytes. Study design, size, duration Retrospective study including 15,849 mature oocyte images (3746 patients, 4168 cycles) from 3 clinics (Canada, USA, Spain) obtained from EmbryoScope Time-Lapse incubators (Vitrolife), immediately post-ICSI. Oocyte images were acquired from cohorts with at least one blastocyst that underwent PGT-A. Oocytes that failed to develop into a blastocyst or became an aneuploid or euploid blastocyst were included and split into 60/20/20 for training, validation, and test subsets for model development. Mosaic or untested blastocysts were excluded. Participants/materials, setting, methods MAGENTA assessed 15,849 images providing a score and probability of blastocyst development. A Ploidy-AI model was then developed utilizing the images plus additional features (oocyte age, MAGENTA score and probability), to predict blastocyst-ploidy outcomes. The negative class were oocytes that failed blastulation/became an aneuploid blastocyst; positive class were those that became a euploid blastocyst. Once trained, the model’s probabilities were calibrated to adjust the prediction threshold from 0.50 to 0.28 –better reflecting true euploid development. Main results and the role of chance On the test set of 3,484 mature oocytes, the Ploidy-AI model predicted blastocyst-ploidy development outcomes with an AUC of 0.71, sensitivity 0.59, specificity 0.70. Subgroup analysis by clinic revealed similar performances across locations; Clinic 1 (n = 1779)—AUC 0.67, sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.52; Clinic 2 (n = 885)—AUC 0.70, sensitivity 0.60, specificity 0.66; and Clinic 3 (n = 820)—AUC 0.76, sensitivity 0.60, specificity 0.76. Comparing model performance between clinics displayed similar performance on Clinic 1 and Clinic 2 (p = 0.1267, DeLong’s test); however, significantly higher performance on Clinic 3 compared to Clinic 1 and Clinic 2 (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, respectively). Oocytes that developed into euploid blastocysts (n = 1483) had significantly higher median model-predicted euploid probabilities than those that developed into aneuploid blastocysts or failed to develop into a blastocyst (n = 2001) by Mann-Whitney U-test (0.30 vs. 0.19, p < 0.001). Model probabilities in the test set were divided into quartiles (Q1-4) according to model probability distribution. A significant, stepwise increase in true euploid development rate from the mature oocyte stage was observed between each quartile group; Q1 – 156/871 (18%), Q2 – 339/871 (39%), Q3 – 415/871 (48%), Q4 – 573/871 (66%). The proportion of true euploid development within all quartiles was significantly different by pairwise-proportions test with Bonferroni correction (all p < 0.01). Limitations, reasons for caution This dataset contains retrospective data from 3 clinics. Additional data from diverse clinic geographies would potentially add to model generalizability. The model displayed significantly higher performance on Clinic 3, which should be further investigated. A prospective validation study is needed to further confirm the clinical utility of the model. Wider implications of the findings Utilizing analysis from the existing MAGENTA model, a Ploidy AI-model was developed to specifically predict euploid blastocyst development from a mature oocyte. Robust non-invasive analysis of oocytes is achieved by these two models, providing valuable insights into oocyte quality, improving expectation management, and presenting an alternative assessment of genetic integrity. Trial registration number No

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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