Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38830209›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy and Trust in AI-Assisted Embryo Ranking: Survey-Based Prospective Study.

Hyung Min Kim, Hyoeun Kang, Chaeyoon Lee, Jong Hyuk Park, Mi Kyung Chung, Miran Kim, Na Young Kim, Hye Jun Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Hyung Min KimAI Lab, Kai Health, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2824-0535
Hyoeun KangAI Lab, Kai Health, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0005-2846-6069
Chaeyoon LeeAI Lab, Kai Health, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0001-6466-5699
Jong Hyuk ParkIVF Clinic, Miraewaheemang Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0004-8009-2255
Mi Kyung ChungIVF Clinic, Seoul Rachel Fertility Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5270-2723
Miran KimDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5553-5334
Na Young KimIVF Clinic, HI Fertility Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0001-7408-6498
Hye Jun LeeKai Health, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0008-6758-9944

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent embryo assessment methods for in vitro fertilization depend on subjective morphological assessments. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for embryo assessment; however, its clinical efficacy and trustworthiness remain unproven. Simulation studies may provide additional evidence, provided that they are meticulously designed to mitigate bias and variance.

objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to evaluate the benefits of an AI model for predicting clinical pregnancy through well-designed simulations. The secondary objective was to identify the characteristics of and potential bias in the subgroups of embryologists with varying degrees of experience.

methodsThis simulation study involved a questionnaire-based survey conducted on 61 embryologists with varying levels of experience from 12 in vitro fertilization clinics. The survey was conducted via Google Forms (Google Inc) in three phases: (1) phase 1, an initial assessment (December 23, 2022, to January 22, 2023); (2) phase 2, a validation assessment (March 6, 2023, to April 5, 2023); and (3) phase 3 an AI-guided assessment (March 6, 2023, to April 5, 2023). Inter- and intraobserver assessments and the accuracy of embryo selection from 360 day-5 embryos before and after AI guidance were analyzed for all embryologists and subgroups of senior and junior embryologists.

resultsWith AI guidance, the interobserver agreement increased from 0.355 to 0.527 and from 0.440 to 0.524 for junior and senior embryologists, respectively, thus reaching similar levels of agreement. In a test of accurate embryo selection with 90 questions, the numbers of correct responses by the embryologists only, embryologists with AI guidance, and AI only were 34 (38%), 45 (50%), and 59 (66%), respectively. Without AI, the average score (accuracy) of the junior group was 33.516 (37%), while that of the senior group was 35.967 (40%), with P<.001 in the t test. With AI guidance, the average score (accuracy) of the junior group increased to 46.581 (52%), reaching a level similar to that of the senior embryologists of 44.833 (50%), with P=.34. Junior embryologists had a higher level of trust in the AI score.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential benefits of AI in selecting embryos with high chances of pregnancy, particularly for embryologists with 5 years or less of experience, possibly due to their trust in AI. Thus, using AI as an auxiliary tool in clinical practice has the potential to improve embryo assessment and increase the probability of a successful pregnancy.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceFertilization in VitroEmbryo, MammalianFemaleHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesTrustartificial intelligenceassisted reproductive technologyembryologistsembryosintraobserver and interobserver agreementsin vitro fertilization

Identifiers

PMID38830209
PMCPMC11184268

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.