ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning and microfluidic integration for oocyte quality prediction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advancements in in vitro fertilization (IVF) over the past 30 years, its outcome effectiveness remains low (20-40%). This study introduces a microfluidic-based machine learning framework to improve predictive accuracy in oocyte quality assessment. Immature oocytes were recorded as they passed through a custom-designed microfluidic channel under controlled flow. Using image processing, two biomechanical features-Cortical Tension (CT) and Deformation Index (DI)-were extracted. Additionally, oocyte diameter and the critical flow rate (Q)-defined as the minimum flow rate necessary for an oocyte to pass through the channel-were included as predictive variables. A dataset of 54 oocytes was labeled based on maturation, fertilization, and cleavage outcomes. Supervised learning models (Random Forest, Decision Tree, K-Nearest Neighbors, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machines, and Light Gradient Boosting Machine were evaluated. Random Forest achieved the best classification accuracy: 76.10% (K-Fold) and 75.93% (Leave-One-Out). For unsupervised learning, K-Means, DBSCAN, Agglomerative Clustering, and Gaussian Mixture Models were applied. Among them, Agglomerative Clustering yielded the best performance (Silhouette = 0.49, Davies-Bouldin = 0.73), showing meaningful grouping patterns among oocytes. These results demonstrate that integrating biomechanical profiling with machine learning can significantly improve the objectivity and accuracy of oocyte quality prediction. This approach holds promise for enhancing embryo selection strategies in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and optimizing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) 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.