An artificial intelligence model correlated with morphological and genetic features of blastocyst quality improves ranking of viable embryos

Le résumé fourni par la source

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can better methods be developed to evaluate the performance and characteristics of an artificial intelligence model for evaluating the likelihood of clinical pregnancy based on analysis of day-5 blastocyst-stage embryos, such that performance evaluation more closely reflects clinical use in IVF procedures, and correlations with known features of embryo quality are identified? DESIGN: De-identified images were provided retrospectively or collected prospectively by IVF clinics using the artificial intelligence model in clinical practice. A total of 9359 images were provided by 18 IVF clinics across six countries, from 4709 women who underwent IVF between 2011 and 2021. Main outcome measures included clinical pregnancy outcome (fetal heartbeat at first ultrasound scan), embryo morphology score, and/or pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) results. RESULTS: A positive linear correlation of artificial intelligence scores with pregnancy outcomes was found, and up to a 12.2% reduction in time to pregnancy (TTP) was observed when comparing the artificial intelligence model with standard morphological grading methods using a novel simulated cohort ranking method. Artificial intelligence scores were significantly correlated with known morphological features of embryo quality based on the Gardner score, and with previously unknown morphological features associated with embryo ploidy status, including chromosomal abnormalities indicative of severity when considering embryos for transfer during IVF. CONCLUSION: Improved methods for evaluating artificial intelligence for embryo selection were developed, and advantages of the artificial intelligence model over current grading approaches were highlighted, strongly supporting the use of the artificial intelligence model in a clinical setting.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.