Feasibility of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Live Birth Without Aneuploidy from a Blastocyst Image

Overview

Journal Reprod Med Biol

Specialty Biology

Date 2019 Apr 19

PMID 30996684

Citations 15

Authors

Yasunari Miyagi

Toshihiro Habara

Rei Hirata

Nobuyoshi Hayashi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To make the artificial intelligence (AI) classifiers of the image of the blastocyst implanted later in order to predict the probability of achieving live birth.

Methods: A system for using the machine learning approaches, which are logistic regression, naive Bayes, nearest neighbors, random forest, neural network, and support vector machine, of artificial intelligence to predict the probability of live birth from a blastocyst image was developed. Eighty images of blastocysts that led to live births and 80 images of blastocysts that led to aneuploid miscarriages were used to create an AI-based method with 5-fold cross-validation retrospectively for classifying embryos.

Results: The logistic regression method showed the best results. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.65, 0.60, 0.70, 0.67, and 0.64, respectively. Area under the curve was 0.65 ± 0.04 (mean ± SE). Estimated probability of belonging to the live birth category was found significantly related to the probability of live birth ( < 0.005).

Conclusions: Classifiers using artificial intelligence applied toward a blastocyst image have a potential to show the probability of live birth being the outcome.

Citing Articles

Enhancing predictive models for egg donation: time to blastocyst hatching and machine learning insights.

Ten J, Herrero L, Linares A, Alvarez E, Ortiz J, Bernabeu A Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024; 22(1):116.

PMID: 39261843 PMC: 11389240. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01285-9.

An artificial intelligence algorithm to select most viable embryos considering current process in IVF labs.

Borna M, Sepehri M, Maleki B Front Artif Intell. 2024; 7:1375474.

PMID: 38881952 PMC: 11177761. DOI: 10.3389/frai.2024.1375474.

Development and evaluation of a live birth prediction model for evaluating human blastocysts from a retrospective study.

Liu H, Zhang Z, Gu Y, Dai C, Shan G, Song H Elife. 2023; 12.

PMID: 36810139 PMC: 10069866. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.83662.

A Homogeneous Ensemble of Robust Pre-defined Neural Network Enables Automated Annotation of Human Embryo Morphokinetics.

Danardono G, Erwin A, Purnama J, Handayani N, Polim A, Boediono A J Reprod Infertil. 2022; 23(4):250-256.

PMID: 36452194 PMC: 9674456. DOI: 10.18502/jri.v23i4.10809.

Shallow artificial networks with morphokinetic time-lapse parameters coupled to ART data allow to predict live birth.

Benchaib M, Labrune E, Giscard dEstaing S, Salle B, Lornage J Reprod Med Biol. 2022; 21(1):e12486.

PMID: 36310657 PMC: 9601773. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12486.

References

Christ J, Gunning M, Palla G, Eijkemans M, Lambalk C, Laven J . Estrogen deprivation and cardiovascular disease risk in primary ovarian insufficiency. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109(4):594-600.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.11.035. View

Miyagi Y, Habara T, Hirata R, Hayashi N . Feasibility of artificial intelligence for predicting live birth without aneuploidy from a blastocyst image. Reprod Med Biol. 2019; 18(2):204-211. PMC: 6452008. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12267. View

Hong Y, Kim S, Moon K, Kim S, Jee B, Lee W . Impact of presence of antiphospholipid antibodies on fertilization outcome. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2018; 61(3):359-366. PMC: 5956119. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2018.61.3.359. View

Litjens G, Sanchez C, Timofeeva N, Hermsen M, Nagtegaal I, Kovacs I . Deep learning as a tool for increased accuracy and efficiency of histopathological diagnosis. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:26286. PMC: 4876324. DOI: 10.1038/srep26286. View

Wong C, Loewke K, Bossert N, Behr B, De Jonge C, Baer T . Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010; 28(10):1115-21. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1686. View

Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman C . Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 26(5):477-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.006. View

Finn A, Scott L, OLeary T, Davies D, Hill J . Sequential embryo scoring as a predictor of aneuploidy in poor-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 21(3):381-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.05.004. View

Gleicher N, Metzger J, Croft G, Kushnir V, Albertini D, Barad D . A single trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage is mathematically unable to determine embryo ploidy accurately enough for clinical use. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017; 15(1):33. PMC: 5408377. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-017-0251-8. View

Taylor E, Gomel V . The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril. 2007; 89(1):1-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.09.069. View

10.

Kresowik J, Sparks A, Van Voorhis B . Clinical factors associated with live birth after single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98(5):1152-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1141. View

11.

Abbod M, Catto J, Linkens D, Hamdy F . Application of artificial intelligence to the management of urological cancer. J Urol. 2007; 178(4 Pt 1):1150-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.122. View

12.

Simoes P, Izumi N, Casagrande R, Venson R, Veronezi C, Moretti G . Classification of images acquired with colposcopy using artificial neural networks. Cancer Inform. 2014; 13:119-24. PMC: 4213185. DOI: 10.4137/CIN.S17948. View

13.

Ortiz A, Munilla J, Gorriz J, Ramirez J . Ensembles of Deep Learning Architectures for the Early Diagnosis of the Alzheimer's Disease. Int J Neural Syst. 2016; 26(7):1650025. DOI: 10.1142/S0129065716500258. View

14.

Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P . Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2013; 35(8):1798-828. DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50. View

15.

Ikhena D, Bulun S . Literature Review on the Role of Uterine Fibroids in Endometrial Function. Reprod Sci. 2017; 25(5):635-643. PMC: 6344955. DOI: 10.1177/1933719117725827. View

16.

Ben-Bassat M, Klove K, Weil M . Sensitivity analysis in bayesian classification models: multiplicative deviations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2011; 2(3):261-6. DOI: 10.1109/tpami.1980.4767015. View

17.

Brezina P, Kutteh W . Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7611. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7611. View

18.

Dreiseitl S, Ohno-Machado L . Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J Biomed Inform. 2003; 35(5-6):352-9. DOI: 10.1016/s1532-0464(03)00034-0. View

19.

Eaton J, Hacker M, Harris D, Thornton K, Penzias A . Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(6):2432-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.008. View

20.

Segars J, Herbert 3rd C, Moore D, Hill G, Wentz A, WINFIELD A . Selective fallopian tube cannulation: initial experience in an infertile population. Fertil Steril. 1990; 53(2):357-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53296-8. View