ArticleScientific reports2025
Merging synthetic and real embryo data for advanced AI predictions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation readiness of artificial intelligence inFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Ensemble deep learning with advanced feature engineering for embryo evaluation on in-vitro fertilisation procedures using biomedical images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate embryo morphology assessment is essential in assisted reproductive technology for selecting the most viable embryo. Artificial intelligence has the potential to enhance this process. However, the limited availability of embryo data presents challenges for training deep learning models. To address this, we trained two generative models using two datasets-one we created and made publicly available, and one existing public dataset-to generate synthetic embryo images at various cell stages, including 2-cell, 4-cell, 8-cell, morula, and blastocyst. These were combined with real images to train classification models for embryo cell stage prediction. Our results demonstrate that incorporating synthetic images alongside real data improved classification performance, with the model achieving 97% accuracy compared to 94.5% when trained solely on real data. This trend remained consistent when tested on an external Blastocyst dataset from a different clinic. Notably, even when trained exclusively on synthetic data and tested on real data, the model achieved a high accuracy of 92%. Furthermore, combining synthetic data from both generative models yielded better classification results than using data from a single generative model. Four embryologists evaluated the fidelity of the synthetic images through a Turing test, during which they annotated inaccuracies and offered feedback. The analysis showed the diffusion model outperformed the generative adversarial network, deceiving embryologists 66.6% versus 25.3% and achieving lower Fréchet inception distance scores.
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.