ArticleScientific reports2024
Segmentation of mature human oocytes provides interpretable and improved blastocyst outcome predictions by a machine learning model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial transcriptomics in ovarian biology technologies: computational challenges, and biological insights.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2026Review
- MAIA platform for routine clinical testing: an artificial intelligence embryo selection tool developed to assist embryologists.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning and microfluidic integration for oocyte quality prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Female Infertility Diagnosis: An Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the medical field of human assisted reproductive technology, a method for interpretable, non-invasive, and objective oocyte evaluation is lacking. To address this clinical gap, a workflow utilizing machine learning techniques has been developed involving automatic multi-class segmentation of two-dimensional images, morphometric analysis, and prediction of developmental outcomes of mature denuded oocytes based on feature extraction and clinical variables. Two separate models have been developed for this purpose-a model to perform multiclass segmentation, and a classifier model to classify oocytes as likely or unlikely to develop into a blastocyst (Day 5-7 embryo). The segmentation model is highly accurate at segmenting the oocyte, ensuring high-quality segmented images (masks) are utilized as inputs for the classifier model (mask model). The mask model displayed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.63, a sensitivity of 0.51, and a specificity of 0.66 on the test set. The AUC underwent a reduction to 0.57 when features extracted from the ooplasm were removed, suggesting the ooplasm holds the information most pertinent to oocyte developmental competence. The mask model was further compared to a deep learning model, which also utilized the segmented images as inputs. The performance of both models combined in an ensemble model was evaluated, showing an improvement (AUC 0.67) compared to either model alone. The results of this study indicate that direct assessments of the oocyte are warranted, providing the first objective insights into key features for developmental competence, a step above the current standard of care-solely utilizing oocyte age as a proxy for quality.
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.