MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411746747 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf097.004

O-004 Multi-center, external validation of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) model that predicts blastocyst PGT-A results from mature oocytes

2025· article· en· W4411746747 on OpenAlexaff
N Mercuri, J Fjeldstad, S Corsac, Dan Nayot, A Krivoi

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystCenter (category theory)AndrologyArtificial intelligenceGynecologyBiologyComputer scienceMedicineEmbryoChemistryGeneticsEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question Is a model developed to predict euploid blastocyst development from mature oocytes generalizable across varying geographic locations? Summary answer A non-invasive AI model predicts euploid blastocyst development from mature oocytes with an AUC of 0.68 on a large dataset from 5 clinics (4 countries). What is known already MAGENTA is an AI-based model that assesses mature oocyte images and provides a score (0-10) correlated to its likelihood of developing to a blastocyst-stage embryo. An additional model has been recently developed to further predict the likelihood of euploid blastocyst development from the same oocyte images yet also incorporates oocyte age and MAGENTA’s assessments as key features. This Ploidy-AI model provides additional insight reflective of the oocyte’s potential chromosomal complement–enhancing the clinical utility of assessments. With the development of a new AI model, external validation of its performance is necessary to ensure generalizability across different geographies and patient demographics. Study design, size, duration This is a retrospective study that included 13,307 images of mature oocytes obtained from 5 clinics in 4 countries (1603 patients, 1949 cycles) including Argentina (C1; mean age 32.6±7.0, BMI unavailable), Brazil (C2; mean age 38.1±3.6, BMI 38.3), Spain (C3; mean age 38.7±3.8, BMI 20.4 and C4; mean age 38.9±3.4, BMI 21.8), and USA (C5; mean age 37.2±4.1; BMI 27). Images were obtained immediately post-ICSI from Embryoscope or GERI Time-Lapse incubators between the years 2020-2024. Participants/materials, setting, methods 13,307 oocyte images were assessed by MAGENTA and the Ploidy-AI model to predict each oocyte’s likelihood of developing into a euploid blastocyst (0-100%). Oocytes that did not develop into a blastocyst (n = 7385) or those that developed into an aneuploid blastocyst (n = 3534) were labelled the negative outcome, whereas those that developed into euploid blastocysts (n = 2388) were labeled the positive outcome. Untested or mosaic blastocysts were excluded. Main results and the role of chance On 13,307 mature oocytes, the Ploidy-AI model achieved an AUC of 0.68, sensitivity 0.54, and specificity 0.71. Oocytes that failed blastulation or developed into an aneuploid blastocyst had significantly lower median model-predicted euploid probability (n = 10,919, 0.20) than those that developed into an euploid blastocyst (n = 2388, 0.28) by Mann-Whitney U-test (p < 0.001). Additionally, model-predicted euploid probabilities were divided into quartiles (Q) according to the distribution within this dataset—Q1 (n = 3327), Q2 (n = 3327), Q3 (n = 3326), Q4 (n = 3327). A significant, stepwise positive increase in true euploid development rate for oocytes within each quartile of model-predicted probabilities was observed by pairwise-proportions test with Bonferroni correction (all p < 0.001): Q1(6%), Q2(14%), Q3(22%), and Q4(30%). Subgroup analysis by Clinic revealed consistent performance across all 5 clinics; C1 (n = 1643) – AUC 0.66, sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.54; C2 (n = 7239) – AUC 0.68, sensitivity 0.51, specificity 0.72; C3 (n = 2442) – AUC 0.72, sensitivity 0.49, specificity 0.80; C4 (n = 802) – AUC 0.68, sensitivity 0.46, specificity 0.76; C5 (n = 1181) – AUC 0.66, sensitivity 0.61, specificity 0.62. The Ploidy-AI model performance was significantly higher on C3 than C1 (p < 0.001), C2 (p < 0.01), C5 (p < 0.01), and the overall dataset (p < 0.01) by DeLong’s test; however, no significant differences were observed in the other clinic-to-clinic or clinic-to-overall dataset comparisons. Limitations, reasons for caution The model displayed significantly higher performance on C3 compared to three other clinics, although model performance on the remaining clinics was similar and comparable to the overall dataset AUC. Further validating the model in additional geographies may ensure greater application. This study was retrospective in nature, prospective evaluation is warranted. Wider implications of the findings External validation of newly developed AI models is critical prior to clinical utilization. Large, diverse datasets, as in this study, ensure model generalization. This study presents a robust validation of a model that predicts blastocyst ploidy development from mature oocytes and is consistent across various clinic locations in different countries. 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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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