Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39513188›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Non-invasive prediction of human embryonic ploidy using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xing Xin, Shanshan Wu, Heli Xu, Yujiu Ma, Nan Bao, Man Gao, Xue Han, Shan Gao, Siwen Zhang, Xinyang Zhao and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Fluid biopsies forMedicine international
    Review
  6. 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

13 authors.

Xing XinCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Shanshan WuCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Heli XuDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110022, China.
Yujiu MaCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Nan BaoThe College of Medicine and Biological Information Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110167, China.
Man GaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110004, China.
Xue HanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110004, China.
Shan GaoCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Siwen ZhangCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Xinyang ZhaoCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Jiarui QiCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Xudong ZhangCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.
Jichun TanCentre of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang 110022, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Embryonic ploidy is critical for the success of embryo transfer. Currently, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is the gold standard for detecting ploidy abnormalities. However, PGT-A has several inherent limitations, including invasive biopsy, high economic burden, and ethical constraints. This paper provides the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms using embryonic images for non-invasive prediction of embryonic ploidy. Methods: Comprehensive searches of studies that developed or utilized AI algorithms to predict embryonic ploidy from embryonic imaging, published up until August 10, 2024, across PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed. Studies with prospective or retrospective designs were included without language restrictions. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve, along with pooled sensitivity and specificity, was estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. The risk of bias and study quality were evaluated using the QUADAS-AI tool. Heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency index ( Findings: Twenty eligible studies were identified, with twelve studies included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of AI for predicting embryonic euploidy were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.81), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.80), and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83), respectively, based on a total of 6879 embryos (3110 euploid and 3769 aneuploid). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses identified the type of AI-driven decision support system, external validation, risk of bias, and year of publication as the primary contributors to the observed heterogeneity. There was no evidence of publication bias. Interpretation: Our findings indicate that AI algorithms exhibit promising performance in predicting embryonic euploidy based on embryonic imaging. Although the current AI models developed cannot entirely replace invasive methods for determining embryo ploidy, AI demonstrates promise as an auxiliary decision-making tool for embryo selection, particularly for individuals who are unable to undergo PGT-A. To enhance the quality of future research, it is essential to overcome the specific challenges and limitations associated with AI studies in reproductive medicine. Funding: This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2702905), the Shengjing Freelance Researcher Plan of Shengjing Hospital and the 345 talent project of Shengjing Hospital.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningEmbryonic ploidyMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID39513188
PMCPMC11541425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.