ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2025
Embryologist versus AI in embryo selection: agreement and impact on pregnancy rates.
Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 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.
- Embryologist experience affects concordance with an artificial intelligence embryo ranking algorithm: benefit of artificial intelligence assistance.F&S reports · 2026Article
- Investigating discrepancies in accuracy, agreement and interpretability for single-frame embryo classification tasks conducted by embryologists and deep learning models.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Can artificial intelligence match or even outperform experienced embryologists in embryo selection for IVF transfer? To explore this question, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 82 IVF cycles comparing embryo selections by an embryologist and AI (iDAscore), analyzing pregnancy outcomes. Embryologist and AI agreed in 64.6% of cases. Pregnancy rates were 45.2% in concordant vs. 44.8% in discordant selections (p > 0.05). AI-based embryo selection aligns closely with human judgment and may aid IVF decision-making. Larger studies are needed to confirm clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40751026What 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.