Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37423932›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023

Comparing performance between clinics of an embryo evaluation algorithm based on time-lapse images and machine learning.

Martin N Johansen, Erik T Parner, Mikkel F Kragh, Keiichi Kato, Satoshi Ueno, Stefan Palm, Manuel Kernbach, Başak Balaban, İpek Keleş, Anette V Gabrielsen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. A review of artificial intelligence applications in in vitro fertilization.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Review
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

12 authors.

Martin N JohansenVitrolife A/S, Jens Juuls Vej 18-20, 8260, Viby J, Denmark. mnjohansen@vitrolife.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9790-0985
Erik T ParnerSection for Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mikkel F KraghVitrolife A/S, Jens Juuls Vej 18-20, 8260, Viby J, Denmark.
Keiichi KatoKato Ladies Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Satoshi UenoKato Ladies Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Stefan PalmMVZ PAN Institut, Cologne, Germany.
Manuel KernbachMVZ PAN Institut, Cologne, Germany.
Başak BalabanAmerican Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
İpek KeleşKoc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Anette V GabrielsenFertility Clinic, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.
Lea H IversenFertility Clinic, Horsens Regional Hospital, Horsens, Denmark.
Jørgen BerntsenVitrolife A/S, Jens Juuls Vej 18-20, 8260, Viby J, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis article aims to assess how differences in maternal age distributions between IVF clinics affect the performance of an artificial intelligence model for embryo viability prediction and proposes a method to account for such differences.

methodsUsing retrospectively collected data from 4805 fresh and frozen single blastocyst transfers of embryos incubated for 5 to 6 days, the discriminative performance was assessed based on fetal heartbeat outcomes. The data was collected from 4 clinics, and the discrimination was measured in terms of the area under ROC curves (AUC) for each clinic. To account for the different age distributions between clinics, a method for age-standardizing the AUCs was developed in which the clinic-specific AUCs were standardized using weights for each embryo according to the relative frequency of the maternal age in the relevant clinic compared to the age distribution in a common reference population.

resultsThere was substantial variation in the clinic-specific AUCs with estimates ranging from 0.58 to 0.69 before standardization. The age-standardization of the AUCs reduced the between-clinic variance by 16%. Most notably, three of the clinics had quite similar AUCs after standardization, while the last clinic had a markedly lower AUC both with and without standardization.

conclusionThe method of using age-standardization of the AUCs that is proposed in this article mitigates some of the variability between clinics. This enables a comparison of clinic-specific AUCs where the difference in age distributions is accounted for.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBlastocystFertilization in VitroHumansMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesTime-Lapse ImagingArtificial intelligenceEmbryo selectionModel performanceTime-lapse

Identifiers

PMID37423932
PMCPMC10440335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.