Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34938903›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2021

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

Michael Anis Mihdi Afnan, Yanhe Liu, Vincent Conitzer, Cynthia Rudin, Abhishek Mishra, Julian Savulescu, Masoud Afnan

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. The evolution of AI-integrated genome editing and its challenges.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The burnout: a silent saboteur in in vitro fertilization laboratories.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael Anis Mihdi AfnanWrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Greater Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5156-7806
Yanhe LiuMonash IVF Group, Southport, Australia.
Vincent ConitzerDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Cynthia RudinDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Abhishek MishraUehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julian SavulescuUehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-6403
Masoud AfnanDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Qingdao United Family Hospital, Qingdao, China.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 212708/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques are starting to be used in IVF, in particular for selecting which embryos to transfer to the woman. AI has the potential to process complex data sets, to be better at identifying subtle but important patterns, and to be more objective than humans when evaluating embryos. However, a current review of the literature shows much work is still needed before AI can be ethically implemented for this purpose. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published, and the efficacy studies which exist demonstrate that algorithms can broadly differentiate well between 'good-' and 'poor-' quality embryos but not necessarily between embryos of similar quality, which is the actual clinical need. Almost universally, the AI models were opaque ('black-box') in that at least some part of the process was uninterpretable. This gives rise to a number of epistemic and ethical concerns, including problems with trust, the possibility of using algorithms that generalize poorly to different populations, adverse economic implications for IVF clinics, potential misrepresentation of patient values, broader societal implications, a responsibility gap in the case of poor selection choices and introduction of a more paternalistic decision-making process. Use of interpretable models, which are constrained so that a human can easily understand and explain them, could overcome these concerns. The contribution of AI to IVF is potentially significant, but we recommend that AI models used in this field should be interpretable, and rigorously evaluated with RCTs before implementation. We also recommend long-term follow-up of children born after AI for embryo selection, regulatory oversight for implementation, and public availability of data and code to enable research teams to independently reproduce and validate existing models.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligenceblack-boxembryo selectionethicsinterpretableIVFmachine learningML

Identifiers

PMID34938903
PMCPMC8687137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.