Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36543475›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2023

A non-invasive artificial intelligence approach for the prediction of human blastocyst ploidy: a retrospective model development and validation study.

Josue Barnes, Matthew Brendel, Vianne R Gao, Suraj Rajendran, Junbum Kim, Qianzi Li, Jonas E Malmsten, Jose T Sierra, Pantelis Zisimopoulos, Alexandros Sigaras and 7 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06762704 (A Non-Invasive Artificial Intelligence Model for the Prediction of Human Blastocyst Ploidy), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
39.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT06762704 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Non-Invasive Artificial Intelligence Model for the Prediction of Human Blastocyst Ploidy: a Multi-Center, Prospective, Non-Randomized Validation Study

TypeobservationalSponsorThe Affiliated Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical SchoolRan2025 to 2027Enrolled1,408ConditionsThe Focus is to Validate the Accuracy of a Non-invasive Artificial Intelligence Model for the Prediction of the Human Blastocyst Ploidy, Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT)ArmsVideo recording
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. ALPS-HCC Score: A Dynamic Liver Stiffness Measurement-Based Machine Learning Model to Predict Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. From genes to germ layers: virtual twins of gastruloids.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. [Progress in the application of artificial intelligence in assisted reproduction].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

17 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Josue BarnesDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Matthew BrendelDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Vianne R GaoInstitute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Tri-Institutional Computational Biology & Medicine Program, Cornell University, NY, USA.
Suraj RajendranDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Tri-Institutional Computational Biology & Medicine Program, Cornell University, NY, USA.
Junbum KimDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Qianzi LiInstitute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Tri-Institutional Computational Biology & Medicine Program, Cornell University, NY, USA.
Jonas E MalmstenRonald O Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jose T SierraQED Analytics, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Pantelis ZisimopoulosDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Caryl and Israel Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Alexandros SigarasDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Caryl and Israel Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Pegah KhosraviDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Caryl and Israel Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Computational Oncology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Marcos MeseguerIVI Valencia, Health Research Institute la Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Qiansheng ZhanRonald O Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Zev RosenwaksRonald O Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Olivier ElementoDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Caryl and Israel Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; WorldQuant Initiative for Quantitative Prediction, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Nikica ZaninovicRonald O Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Iman HajirasoulihaDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Institute for Computational Biomedicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Caryl and Israel Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: imh2003@med.cornell.edu.
Cornell University · USEP Analytics (United States) · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001873 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI REILLY, MUREDACH P · 2016 to 2025
$99.0M
Disparities in COVID Disease Severity and Outcomes in New York CityUL1TR002384 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JULIANNE L IMPERATO-MCGINLEY · 2017 to 2026
$86.2M
J. NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002386 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Genevieve Giny Fouda Amou ou · 2017 to 2026
$5.8M
Improving Metagenomic Analysis with Novel Algorithms and TechnologiesR35GM138152 · NIGMS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Iman Hajirasouliha · 2020 to 2026
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002386NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001873NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002384NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM138152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne challenge in the field of in-vitro fertilisation is the selection of the most viable embryos for transfer. Morphological quality assessment and morphokinetic analysis both have the disadvantage of intra-observer and inter-observer variability. A third method, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), has limitations too, including its invasiveness and cost. We hypothesised that differences in aneuploid and euploid embryos that allow for model-based classification are reflected in morphology, morphokinetics, and associated clinical information.

methodsIn this retrospective study, we used machine-learning and deep-learning approaches to develop STORK-A, a non-invasive and automated method of embryo evaluation that uses artificial intelligence to predict embryo ploidy status. Our method used a dataset of 10 378 embryos that consisted of static images captured at 110 h after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, morphokinetic parameters, blastocyst morphological assessments, maternal age, and ploidy status. Independent and external datasets, Weill Cornell Medicine EmbryoScope+ (WCM-ES+; Weill Cornell Medicine Center of Reproductive Medicine, NY, USA) and IVI Valencia (IVI Valencia, Health Research Institute la Fe, Valencia, Spain) were used to test the generalisability of STORK-A and were compared measuring accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

findingsAnalysis and model development included the use of 10 378 embryos, all with PGT-A results, from 1385 patients (maternal age range 21-48 years; mean age 36·98 years [SD 4·62]). STORK-A predicted aneuploid versus euploid embryos with an accuracy of 69·3% (95% CI 66·9-71·5; AUC 0·761; positive predictive value [PPV] 76·1%; negative predictive value [NPV] 62·1%) when using images, maternal age, morphokinetics, and blastocyst score. A second classification task trained to predict complex aneuploidy versus euploidy and single aneuploidy produced an accuracy of 74·0% (95% CI 71·7-76·1; AUC 0·760; PPV 54·9%; NPV 87·6%) using an image, maternal age, morphokinetic parameters, and blastocyst grade. A third classification task trained to predict complex aneuploidy versus euploidy had an accuracy of 77·6% (95% CI 75·0-80·0; AUC 0·847; PPV 76·7%; NPV 78·0%). STORK-A reported accuracies of 63·4% (AUC 0·702) on the WCM-ES+ dataset and 65·7% (AUC 0·715) on the IVI Valencia dataset, when using an image, maternal age, and morphokinetic parameters, similar to the STORK-A test dataset accuracy of 67·8% (AUC 0·737), showing generalisability.

interpretationAs a proof of concept, STORK-A shows an ability to predict embryo ploidy in a non-invasive manner and shows future potential as a standardised supplementation to traditional methods of embryo selection and prioritisation for implantation or recommendation for PGT-A.

fundingUS National Institutes of Health.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePreimplantation DiagnosisAdultAneuploidyBlastocystFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPloidiesPregnancyRetrospective StudiesSemenUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID36543475
PMCPMC10193126
OpenAlexW4312113558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.