ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
A machine learning model for predicting fertilization following short-term insemination using embryo images.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A machine learning model for predicting fertilization following short-term insemination using embryo images.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study established a machine learning model (MLM) trained on embryo images to predict fertilization following short-term insemination for early rescue ICSI and compared its predictive performance with the embryologist's manual classification. Methods: Embryo images at 4.5 and 8 h post-insemination were preprocessed into vectors using ResNet50. The Light Gradient Boosting Machine (Light GBM) was employed for training vectors. Fertilization in the test dataset was assessed by MLM, with seven senior and 11 junior embryologists. Predictive metrics were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and paired Results: Comparing MLM, senior embryologists, and junior embryologists, significant differences were observed in accuracy (0.71 ± 0.01, 0.75 ± 0.05, 0.61 ± 0.05), recall (0.84 ± 0.02, 0.84 ± 0.10, 0.61 ± 0.07), F1-score (0.78 ± 0.01, 0.81 ± 0.04, 0.66 ± 0.04), and area under the curve (0.73 ± 0.0 3, 0.73 ± 0.06, 0.61 ± 0.07), the MLM outperforming junior embryologists with <1 year of experience. No significant differences were observed between the MLM and senior embryologists with over 5 years of experience. Conclusions: MLM can effectively predict fertilization following short-term insemination by analyzing cytoplasmic changes in images. These results underscore the potential to enhance clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.
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.