ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2025
Application of a methodological framework for the development and multicenter validation of reliable artificial intelligence in embryo evaluation.
Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technological Advances in Molecular Diagnostic Methods for Hereditary Diseases in Preconception and Prenatal Settings.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Study of comparative performance of general-purpose LLM-based systems in predicting IVF outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Prioritizing embryologist health: occupational health hazards and preventive strategies.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) models analyzing embryo time-lapse images have been developed to predict the likelihood of pregnancy following in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, limited research exists on methods ensuring AI consistency and reliability in clinical settings during its development and validation process. We present a methodology for developing and validating an AI model across multiple datasets to demonstrate reliable performance in evaluating blastocyst-stage embryos.
methodsThis multicenter analysis utilizes time-lapse images, pregnancy outcomes, and morphologic annotations from embryos collected at 10 IVF clinics across 9 countries between 2018 and 2022. The four-step methodology for developing and evaluating the AI model include: (I) curating annotated datasets that represent the intended clinical use case; (II) developing and optimizing the AI model; (III) evaluating the AI's performance by assessing its discriminative power and associations with pregnancy probability across variable data; and (IV) ensuring interpretability and explainability by correlating AI scores with relevant morphologic features of embryo quality. Three datasets were used: the training and validation dataset (n = 16,935 embryos), the blind test dataset (n = 1,708 embryos; 3 clinics), and the independent dataset (n = 7,445 embryos; 7 clinics) derived from previously unseen clinic cohorts.
resultsThe AI was designed as a deep learning classifier ranking embryos by score according to their likelihood of clinical pregnancy. Higher AI score brackets were associated with increased fetal heartbeat (FH) likelihood across all evaluated datasets, showing a trend of increasing odds ratios (OR). The highest OR was observed in the top G4 bracket (test dataset G4 score ≥ 7.5: OR 3.84; independent dataset G4 score ≥ 7.5: OR 4.01), while the lowest was in the G1 bracket (test dataset G1 score < 4.0: OR 0.40; independent dataset G1 score < 4.0: OR 0.45). AI score brackets G2, G3, and G4 displayed OR values above 1.0 (P < 0.05), indicating linear associations with FH likelihood. Average AI scores were consistently higher for FH-positive than for FH-negative embryos within each age subgroup. Positive correlations were also observed between AI scores and key morphologic parameters used to predict embryo quality.
conclusionsStrong AI performance across multiple datasets demonstrates the value of our four-step methodology in developing and validating the AI as a reliable adjunct to embryo evaluation.
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.