MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412493461 · doi:10.1016/j.xfss.2025.07.003

Artificial intelligence–driven oocyte assessment for predicting blastulation and high-quality blastocyst formation in severe male factor infertility

2025· article· en· W4412493461 on OpenAlexaff
Edson Borges, Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga, Maite del Collado, Assumpto Iaconelli, Jullin Fjeldstad, N Mercuri, Parisa Mojiri, Amanda Souza Setti

Bibliographic record

VenueF&S Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreOttawa Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastocystBlastulaInfertilityAndrologyOocyteGynecologyMedicineBiologyPregnancyEmbryoEmbryogenesisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study whether artificial intelligence (AI)-driven oocyte evaluation is associated with blastocyst development and quality in couples with severe male factor infertility (SMF) undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. DESIGN: Cohort study. SUBJECTS: Fourteen thousand six hundred two oocyte images from 2,156 ICSI cycles performed between January 2020 and May 2024 in a private, university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center. Cycles were categorized into the following two groups: SMF (n = 200 cycles, 1,478 embryos) and non-SMF (n = 1,956 cycles, 13,124 embryos). Severe male factor infertility was defined as <5 million sperm in the ejaculate. EXPOSURE: Oocyte images were captured before ICSI and scored using the AI tool MAGENTA. The predictive value of Magenta Scores (MS) on embryonic development was assessed. The association between MS and oocyte fertilization and blastocyst formation was analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oocyte fertilization, blastulation rate, and blastocyst quality. RESULTS: Magenta scores were significantly lower in oocytes that failed to fertilize compared with those that successfully fertilized (5.00 ± 0.04 vs. 6.44 ± 0.03). Blastulation rate was lower in the SMF group (46.61% vs. 50.80%), and blastocysts exhibited higher MS than nonblastocysts (5.12 ± 0.3 vs. 6.69 ± 0.3). The top-quality blastocyst rate was lower in SMF (56.6% vs. 65.2%), and high-quality blastocysts had higher MS than lower-quality ones (7.2 ± 0.6 vs. 6.8 ± 0.5). Among SMF cycles, MS were lower in oocytes that failed to fertilize (4.91 ± 0.12 vs. 6.34 ± 0.10). Magenta scores also differed between embryos that reached the blastocyst stage and those that did not (6.70 ± 0.11 vs. 4.96 ± 0.10). Top-quality blastocysts had significantly higher MS than others (7.00 ± 0.21 vs. 6.39 ± 0.19). Paternal age negatively correlated with fertilization, blastulation, and blastocyst quality; however, differences remained significant after adjusting for paternal age. CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence-based oocyte evaluation is associated with fertilization, blastulation, and blastocyst quality in SMF couples undergoing ICSI cycles. Magenta score values were consistently higher for blastocysts than nonblastocysts, demonstrating the AI tool's utility in identifying oocytes with greater developmental potential, regardless of male infertility factors. However, the absence of sperm-specific factors in the MAGENTA algorithm may limit its ability to fully account for male infertility.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF&S ScienceSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207