Advanced KPI Framework for IVF Pregnancy Prediction Models in IVF Protocols

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2024 Nov 28

PMID 39604481

Authors

Sergei Sergeev

Iuliia Diakova

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The utilization of neural networks in assisted reproductive technology is essential due to their ability to process complex and multidimensional data inherent in IVF procedures, offering opportunities for clinical outcome prediction, personalized treatment implementation, and overall advancement in fertility treatment. The aim of this study was to develop a novel approach to IVF laboratory data analysis, employing deep neural networks to predict the likelihood of clinical pregnancy occurrence within an individual treatment cycle, integrating both key performance indicators and clinical data. We conducted a retrospective analysis spanning 11 years, encompassing 8732 treatment cycles, to extract the most relevant features to our goal and train the model. Internal validation was performed on 1600 preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy embryo transfers, while external was conducted across two independent clinics (over 10,000 cases). Leveraging recurrent neural networks, our model demonstrates high accuracy in predicting the likelihood of clinical pregnancy within specific IVF treatment cycles (AUC = 0.68-0.86; test accuracy = 0.78, F1 score = 0.71, sensitivity = 0.62; specificity = 0.86) comparable to time-lapse system but with a simpler approach. Our model facilitates both retrospective analysis of outcomes and prospective evaluation of clinical pregnancy chances, thus presenting a promising avenue for quality management programs and promotes their realization in medical centers.

References

Esteves S, Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Fischer R, Andersen C, Conforti A . The POSEIDON Criteria and Its Measure of Success Through the Eyes of Clinicians and Embryologists. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019; 10:814. PMC: 6880663. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00814. View

Blank C, Wildeboer R, DeCroo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, De Sutter P . Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: a machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril. 2019; 111(2):318-326. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.030. View

Franco Jr J, Petersen C, Mauri A, Vagnini L, Renzi A, Petersen B . Key performance indicators score (KPIs-score) based on clinical and laboratorial parameters can establish benchmarks for internal quality control in an ART program. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017; 21(2):61-66. PMC: 5473694. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20170016. View

Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, Aparicio Ruiz B, Garcia Velasco J, Remohi J . The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2014; 30(2):276-83. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu331. View

Dal Canto M, Bartolacci A, Turchi D, Pignataro D, Lain M, De Ponti E . Faster fertilization and cleavage kinetics reflect competence to achieve a live birth after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, but this association fades with maternal age. Fertil Steril. 2020; 115(3):665-672. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.06.023. View

Diakiw S, Hall J, VerMilyea M, Lim A, Quangkananurug W, Chanchamroen S . An artificial intelligence model correlated with morphological and genetic features of blastocyst quality improves ranking of viable embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022; 45(6):1105-1117. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.07.018. View

Xi Q, Yang Q, Wang M, Huang B, Zhang B, Li Z . Individualized embryo selection strategy developed by stacking machine learning model for better in vitro fertilization outcomes: an application study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021; 19(1):53. PMC: 8020549. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-021-00734-z. View

Medenica S, Zivanovic D, Batkoska L, Marinelli S, Basile G, Perino A . The Future Is Coming: Artificial Intelligence in the Treatment of Infertility Could Improve Assisted Reproduction Outcomes-The Value of Regulatory Frameworks. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(12). PMC: 9777042. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122979. View

. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Hum Reprod Open. 2019; 2017(2):hox011. PMC: 6276649. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hox011. View

10.

Loewke K, Cho J, Brumar C, Maeder-York P, Barash O, Malmsten J . Characterization of an artificial intelligence model for ranking static images of blastocyst stage embryos. Fertil Steril. 2022; 117(3):528-535. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.11.022. View

11.

VerMilyea M, Hall J, Diakiw S, Johnston A, Nguyen T, Perugini D . Development of an artificial intelligence-based assessment model for prediction of embryo viability using static images captured by optical light microscopy during IVF. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(4):770-784. PMC: 7192535. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa013. View

12.

Zaca C, Coticchio G, Vigiliano V, Lagalla C, Nadalini M, Tarozzi N . Fine-tuning IVF laboratory key performance indicators of the Vienna consensus according to female age. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022; 39(4):945-952. PMC: 9050984. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02468-2. View

13.

Glatstein I, Chavez-Badiola A, Curchoe C . New frontiers in embryo selection. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023; 40(2):223-234. PMC: 9935769. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02708-5. View

14.

Ferraretti A, La Marca A, Fauser B, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L . ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(7):1616-24. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der092. View

15.

Bori L, Meseguer F, Valera M, Galan A, Remohi J, Meseguer M . The higher the score, the better the clinical outcome: retrospective evaluation of automatic embryo grading as a support tool for embryo selection in IVF laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2022; 37(6):1148-1160. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac066. View

16.

Uyar A, Bener A, Ciray H . Predictive Modeling of Implantation Outcome in an In Vitro Fertilization Setting: An Application of Machine Learning Methods. Med Decis Making. 2014; 35(6):714-25. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14535984. View

17.

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

18.

Sayed S, Reigstad M, Petersen B, Schwennicke A, Hausken J, Storeng R . Time-lapse imaging derived morphokinetic variables reveal association with implantation and live birth following in vitro fertilization: A retrospective study using data from transferred human embryos. PLoS One. 2020; 15(11):e0242377. PMC: 7676704. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242377. View

19.

Alizadehsani R, Roshanzamir M, Hussain S, Khosravi A, Koohestani A, Zangooei M . Handling of uncertainty in medical data using machine learning and probability theory techniques: a review of 30 years (1991-2020). Ann Oper Res. 2021; :1-42. PMC: 7982279. DOI: 10.1007/s10479-021-04006-2. View

20.

Sarais V, Reschini M, Busnelli A, Biancardi R, Paffoni A, Somigliana E . Predicting the success of IVF: external validation of the van Loendersloot's model. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(6):1245-52. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew069. View