» Articles » PMID: 36275401

Application of Machine Learning to Predict Aneuploidy and Mosaicism in Embryos from in Vitro Fertilization Cycles

Overview
Journal AJOG Glob Rep
Date 2022 Oct 24
PMID 36275401
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The factors associated with embryo aneuploidy have been extensively studied. Mostly maternal age and to a lesser extent male factor and ovarian stimulation have been related to the occurrence of chromosomal alterations in the embryo. On the other hand, the main factors that may increase the incidence of embryo mosaicism have not yet been established.

Objective: This study aimed to establish a machine learning model that would allow prediction of aneuploidies and mosaicism in embryos conceived via in vitro fertilization, and thus help to determine which variables are associated with these chromosomal alterations.

Study Design: The study design was observational and retrospective. A total of 6989 embryos from 2476 cycles of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies were included (January 2013 to December 2020). The trophoectoderm biopsies on day-5, -6, or -7 blastocysts were analyzed by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). The different maternal, paternal, couple, embryo, and in vitro fertilization cycle characteristics were recorded in a database (22 predictor variables) from which predictive models of embryo aneuploidy and mosaicism were developed; 16 different unsupervised classification machine learning algorithms were used to establish the predictive models.

Results: Two different predictive models were performed: one for aneuploidy and the other for mosaicism. The predictor variable was of multiclass type because it included the segmental- and whole-chromosome alteration categories. The best predicting models for both aneuploidies and mosaicism were those obtained from the Random Forest algorithm. The area under ROC curve (AUC) value was 0.792 for the aneuploidy explanatory model and 0.776 for mosaicism. The most important variable in the final aneuploidy model was maternal age, followed by paternal and maternal karyotype and embryo quality. In the predictive model of mosaicism, the most important variable was the technique used in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies and embryo quality, followed by maternal age and day of biopsy.

Conclusion: It is possible to predict embryo aneuploidy and mosaicism from certain characteristics of the patients and their embryos.

Citing Articles

Non-invasive prediction of human embryonic ploidy using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xin X, Wu S, Xu H, Ma Y, Bao N, Gao M EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 77:102897.

PMID: 39513188 PMC: 11541425. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102897.


A review of artificial intelligence applications in in vitro fertilization.

Zhang Q, Liang X, Chen Z J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 42(1):3-14.

PMID: 39400647 PMC: 11806189. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03284-6.


Quality of IVM ovarian tissue oocytes: impact of clinical, demographic, and laboratory factors.

Kashutina M, Obosyan L, Bunyaeva E, Zhernov Y, Kirillova A J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(11):3079-3088.

PMID: 39349891 PMC: 11621277. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03234-2.


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.


Factors affecting biochemical pregnancy loss (BPL) in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles: machine learning-assisted identification.

Ortiz J, Lledo B, Morales R, Manez-Grau A, Cascales A, Rodriguez-Arnedo A Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024; 22(1):101.

PMID: 39118049 PMC: 11308629. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01271-1.


References
1.
Cascales A, Lledo B, Ortiz J, Morales R, Ten J, Llacer J . Effect of ovarian stimulation on embryo aneuploidy and mosaicism rate. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2021; 67(1):42-49. DOI: 10.1080/19396368.2020.1850908. View

2.
Raef B, Maleki M, Ferdousi R . Computational prediction of implantation outcome after embryo transfer. Health Informatics J. 2019; 26(3):1810-1826. DOI: 10.1177/1460458219892138. View

3.
MacLennan M, Crichton J, Playfoot C, Adams I . Oocyte development, meiosis and aneuploidy. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2015; 45:68-76. PMC: 4828587. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2015.10.005. View

4.
Rodrigo L, Meseguer M, Mateu E, Mercader A, Peinado V, Bori L . Sperm chromosomal abnormalities and their contribution to human embryo aneuploidy. Biol Reprod. 2019; 101(6):1091-1101. DOI: 10.1093/biolre/ioz125. View

5.
Coll L, Parriego M, Mateo S, Garcia-Monclus S, Rodriguez I, Boada M . Prevalence, types and possible factors influencing mosaicism in IVF blastocysts: results from a single setting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020; 42(1):55-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.025. View