Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36763673›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2023

A hybrid artificial intelligence model leverages multi-centric clinical data to improve fetal heart rate pregnancy prediction across time-lapse systems.

A Duval, D Nogueira, N Dissler, M Maskani Filali, F Delestro Matos, L Chansel-Debordeaux, M Ferrer-Buitrago, E Ferrer, V Antequera, M Ruiz-Jorro and 19 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
24.4field-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.

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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

29 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

A DuvalImVitro, Paris, France.
D NogueiraINOVIE Fertilité, Institut de Fertilité La Croix Du Sud, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8615-9180
N DisslerImVitro, Paris, France.
M Maskani FilaliImVitro, Paris, France.
F Delestro MatosImVitro, Paris, France.
L Chansel-DebordeauxService de la biologie et de la reproduction et CECOS, CHU Bordeaux Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.
M Ferrer-BuitragoCrea Centro Médico de Fertilidad y Reproducción Asistida, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5561-1181
E FerrerCrea Centro Médico de Fertilidad y Reproducción Asistida, Valencia, Spain.
V AntequeraCrea Centro Médico de Fertilidad y Reproducción Asistida, Valencia, Spain.
M Ruiz-JorroCrea Centro Médico de Fertilidad y Reproducción Asistida, Valencia, Spain.
A PapaxanthosService de la biologie et de la reproduction et CECOS, CHU Bordeaux Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.
H OuchchaneINOVIE Fertilité, Gen-Bio, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
B KeppiINOVIE Fertilité, Gen-Bio, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
P-Y PrimaLaboratoire FIV PMAtlantique - Clinique Santé Atlantique, Nantes, France.
G Regnier-VigourouxINOVIE Fertilité, LaboSud, Montpellier, France.
L TrebessesINOVIE Fertilité, AxBio, Bayonne, France.
C Geoffroy-SiraudinHopital Saint Joseph, Service Médicine et Biologie de la Reproduction, Marseille, France.
S ZaragozaINOVIE Fertilité, Bioaxiome, Avignon, France.
E ScaliciINOVIE Fertilité, Bioaxiome, Avignon, France.
P SanguinetINOVIE Fertilité, LaboSud, Montpellier, France.
N CassagnardINOVIE Fertilité, Institut de Fertilité La Croix Du Sud, Toulouse, France.
C OzanonClinique Hôtel Privé Natecia, Centre Assistance Médicale à la Procréation, Lyon, France.
A De La FuenteInstituto Europeo de Fertilidad, Madrid, Spain.
E GómezNext Fertility, Murcia, Spain.
M Gervoise BoyerHopital Saint Joseph, Service Médicine et Biologie de la Reproduction, Marseille, France.
P BoyerHopital Saint Joseph, Service Médicine et Biologie de la Reproduction, Marseille, France.
E RicciarelliFIVMadrid, Madrid, Spain.
X Pollet-VillardNataliance, Centre Assistance Médicale à la Procréation, Saran, France.
A Boussommier-CallejaImVitro, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9524-454X
Groupe de Recherche en Fertilité Humaine · FRCentro de Infertilidad y Reproducción Humana · ESHôpital Saint Joseph · FRIMT Atlantique · FRInstituto de Fermentaciones Industriales · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionCan artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms developed to assist embryologists in evaluating embryo morphokinetics be enriched with multi-centric clinical data to better predict clinical pregnancy outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: Training algorithms on multi-centric clinical data significantly increased AUC compared to algorithms that only analyzed the time-lapse system (TLS) videos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several AI-based algorithms have been developed to predict pregnancy, most of them based only on analysis of the time-lapse recording of embryo development. It remains unclear, however, whether considering numerous clinical features can improve the predictive performances of time-lapse based embryo evaluation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A dataset of 9986 embryos (95.60% known clinical pregnancy outcome, 32.47% frozen transfers) from 5226 patients from 14 European fertility centers (in two countries) recorded with three different TLS was used to train and validate the algorithms. A total of 31 clinical factors were collected. A separate test set (447 videos) was used to compare performances between embryologists and the algorithm. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsClinical pregnancy (defined as a pregnancy leading to a fetal heartbeat) outcome was first predicted using a 3D convolutional neural network that analyzed videos of the embryonic development up to 2 or 3 days of development (33% of the database) or up to 5 or 6 days of development (67% of the database). The output video score was then fed as input alongside clinical features to a gradient boosting algorithm that generated a second score corresponding to the hybrid model. AUC was computed across 7-fold of the validation dataset for both models. These predictions were compared to those of 13 senior embryologists made on the test dataset. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The average AUC of the hybrid model across all 7-fold was significantly higher than that of the video model (0.727 versus 0.684, respectively, P = 0.015; Wilcoxon test). A SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis of the hybrid model showed that the six first most important features to predict pregnancy were morphokinetics of the embryo (video score), oocyte age, total gonadotrophin dose intake, number of embryos generated, number of oocytes retrieved, and endometrium thickness. The hybrid model was shown to be superior to embryologists with respect to different metrics, including the balanced accuracy (P ≤ 0.003; Wilcoxon test). The likelihood of pregnancy was linearly linked to the hybrid score, with increasing odds ratio (maximum P-value = 0.001), demonstrating the ranking capacity of the model. Training individual hybrid models did not improve predictive performance. A clinic hold-out experiment was conducted and resulted in AUCs ranging between 0.63 and 0.73. Performance of the hybrid model did not vary between TLS or between subgroups of embryos transferred at different days of embryonic development. The hybrid model did fare better for patients older than 35 years (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney test), and for fresh transfers (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney test). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Participant centers were located in two countries, thus limiting the generalization of our conclusion to wider subpopulations of patients. Not all clinical features were available for all embryos, thus limiting the performances of the hybrid model in some instances. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsOur study suggests that considering clinical data improves pregnancy predictive performances and that there is no need to retrain algorithms at the clinic level unless they follow strikingly different practices. This study characterizes a versatile AI algorithm with similar performance on different time-lapse microscopes and on embryos transferred at different development stages. It can also help with patients of different ages and protocols used but with varying performances, presumably because the task of predicting fetal heartbeat becomes more or less hard depending on the clinical context. This AI model can be made widely available and can help embryologists in a wide range of clinical scenarios to standardize their practices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding for the study was provided by ImVitro with grant funding received in part from BPIFrance (Bourse French Tech Emergence (DOS0106572/00), Paris Innovation Amorçage (DOS0132841/00), and Aide au Développement DeepTech (DOS0152872/00)). A.B.-C. is a co-owner of, and holds stocks in, ImVitro SAS. A.B.-C. and F.D.M. hold a patent for 'Devices and processes for machine learning prediction of in vitro fertilization' (EP20305914.2). A.D., N.D., M.M.F., and F.D.M. are or have been employees of ImVitro and have been granted stock options. X.P.-V. has been paid as a consultant to ImVitro and has been granted stocks options of ImVitro. L.C.-D. and C.G.-S. have undertaken paid consultancy for ImVitro SAS. The remaining authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroHeart Rate, FetalHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateTime-Lapse Imagingartificial intelligencedeep learningembryo evaluationgonadotrophinmachine learningpregnancytime-lapse incubator systems

Identifiers

PMID36763673
PMCPMC10068266
OpenAlexW4319931033

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.