Literature DB >> 29338469

Assessing efficacy of day 3 embryo time-lapse algorithms retrospectively: impacts of dataset type and confounding factors.

Yanhe Liu1,2, Katie Feenan1, Vincent Chapple1, Phillip Matson1,2.   

Abstract

This study investigated the efficacy of four published day 3 embryo time-lapse algorithms based on different types of datasets (known implantation data [KID] and single embryo transfer [SET]), and the confounding effect of female age and conventional embryo morphology. Four algorithms were retrospectively applied to three types of datasets generated at Fertility North between February 2013 and December 2014: (a) KID dataset (n = 270), (b) a subset of SET (n = 144, end-point = implantation), and (c) SET (n = 144, end-point = live birth), respectively. All four algorithms showed progressively reduced predictive power (expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristics curve and 95% confidence interval [CI]) after application to the three datasets (a-c): Liu (0.762 [0.701-0.824] vs. 0.724 [0.641-0.807] vs. 0.707 [0.620-0.793]), KIDScore (0.614 [0.539-0.688] vs. 0.548 [0.451-0.645] vs. 0.536 [0.434-0.637]), Meseguer (0.585 [0.508-0.663] vs. 0.56 [0.462-0.658] vs. 0.549 [0.445-0.652]), and Basile (0.582 [0.505-0.659] vs. 0.519 [0.421-0.618] vs. 0.509 [0.406-0.612]). Furthermore, using KID dataset, the association (expressed as odds ratio and 95% CI) between time-lapse algorithms and implantation outcomes lost statistical significance after adjusting for conventional embryo morphology and female age in 3 of the 4 algorithms (KIDScore 1.832 [1.118-3.004] vs. 1.063 [0.659-1.715], Meseguer 1.150 [1.021-1.295] vs. 1.122 [0.981-1.284] and Basile 1.122 [1.008-1.249] vs. 1.038 [0.919-1.172]). In conclusion, SET is a preferred dataset to KID when developing or validating time-lapse algorithms, and day 3 conventional embryo morphology and female age should be considered as confounding factors.

Keywords:  Implantation; embryo viability; single embryo transfer (SET)

Year:  2018        PMID: 29338469     DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2018.1425919

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Fertil (Camb)        ISSN: 1464-7273            Impact factor:   2.767


  12 in total

Review 1.  Are computational applications the "crystal ball" in the IVF laboratory? The evolution from mathematics to artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Mara Simopoulou; Konstantinos Sfakianoudis; Evangelos Maziotis; Nikolaos Antoniou; Anna Rapani; George Anifandis; Panagiotis Bakas; Stamatis Bolaris; Agni Pantou; Konstantinos Pantos; Michael Koutsilieris
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Between-laboratory reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection using qualitative and quantitative parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yanhe Liu; Fang Qi; Phillip Matson; Dean E Morbeck; Ben W Mol; Sai Zhao; Masoud Afnan
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-02       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer.

Authors:  D Tran; S Cooke; P J Illingworth; D K Gardner
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  Can novel early non-invasive biomarkers of embryo quality be identified with time-lapse imaging to predict live birth?

Authors:  J Barberet; C Bruno; E Valot; C Antunes-Nunes; L Jonval; J Chammas; C Choux; P Ginod; P Sagot; A Soudry-Faure; P Fauque
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  The Effect of Advanced Maternal Age on Embryo Morphokinetics.

Authors:  Miriam Warshaviak; Yael Kalma; Ariela Carmon; Nivin Samara; Michal Dviri; Foad Azem; Dalit Ben-Yosef
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 5.555

6.  Interpretable, not black-box, artificial intelligence should be used for embryo selection.

Authors:  Michael Anis Mihdi Afnan; Yanhe Liu; Vincent Conitzer; Cynthia Rudin; Abhishek Mishra; Julian Savulescu; Masoud Afnan
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2021-11-02

7.  Blastocyst score, a blastocyst quality ranking tool, is a predictor of blastocyst ploidy and implantation potential.

Authors:  Qiansheng Zhan; E T Sierra; Jonas Malmsten; Zhen Ye; Zev Rosenwaks; Nikica Zaninovic
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-09-28

8.  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.

Authors:  Shabana Sayed; Marte Myhre Reigstad; Bjørn Molt Petersen; Arne Schwennicke; Jon Wegner Hausken; Ritsa Storeng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Time-lapse technology for embryo culture and selection.

Authors:  Kersti Lundin; Hannah Park
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 2.384

Review 10.  Mining of variables from embryo morphokinetics, blastocyst's morphology and patient parameters: an approach to predict the live birth in the assisted reproduction service.

Authors:  Dóris Spinosa Chéles; Eloiza Adriane Dal Molin; José Celso Rocha; Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2020-10-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.