ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023
Advancements in the future of automating micromanipulation techniques in the IVF laboratory using deep convolutional neural networks.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Two laser-assisted hatching methods of embryos in ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- Bezafibrate and Cholic Acid-Mediated Lipid Reduction Improves the Cryotolerance of Vitrified In Vivo-Derived Porcine Embryos.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- On AI's role in training professionals in assisted reproductive technology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Testing the generalizability and effectiveness of deep learning models among clinics: sperm detection as a pilot study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Embryologist staffing in assisted reproductive technology laboratories: An international comparative review.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine if deep learning artificial intelligence algorithms can be used to accurately identify key morphologic landmarks on oocytes and cleavage stage embryo images for micromanipulation procedures such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) or assisted hatching (AH).
methodsTwo convolutional neural network (CNN) models were trained, validated, and tested over three replicates to identify key morphologic landmarks used to guide embryologists when performing micromanipulation procedures. The first model (CNN-ICSI) was trained (n = 13,992), validated (n = 1920), and tested (n = 3900) to identify the optimal location for ICSI through polar body identification. The second model (CNN-AH) was trained (n = 13,908), validated (n = 1908), and tested (n = 3888) to identify the optimal location for AH on the zona pellucida that maximizes distance from healthy blastomeres.
resultsThe CNN-ICSI model accurately identified the polar body and corresponding optimal ICSI location with 98.9% accuracy (95% CI 98.5-99.2%) with a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) with micro and macro area under the curves (AUC) of 1. The CNN-AH model accurately identified the optimal AH location with 99.41% accuracy (95% CI 99.11-99.62%) with a ROC with micro and macro AUCs of 1.
conclusionDeep CNN models demonstrate powerful potential in accurately identifying key landmarks on oocytes and cleavage stage embryos for micromanipulation. These findings are novel, essential stepping stones in the automation of micromanipulation procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.