ArticleReproductive biomedicine online2026
Evaluating the concordance between AI-based and conventional embryo selection: implications for clinical decision-making.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine online, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
research questionCan artificial intelligence (AI) standardize embryo scoring, and help embryologists to identify embryos with the highest likelihood of pregnancy and live birth?
designMulticentre, retrospective, head-to-head analysis across six centres in five countries. An embryo selection algorithm (ESA) and 20 embryologists of varying seniority independently selected the implanting (i.e. 'best') embryo from 1681 pairs (1237 pairs with biochemical pregnancy; 444 pairs with live births), with each pair comprising one embryo with a positive outcome and one embryo with a negative outcome. Accuracy was computed for the ESA and for the embryologists; differences were assessed using McNemar's test.
resultsThe accuracy of the ESA was 70.1%. The accuracy of individual embryologists ranged from 64.2% to 68.9% (mean value for embryologists 67.7%), and the accuracy of the expert committee (i.e. majority vote across the 20 embryologists) was 69.5%. McNemar's test indicated a significant advantage for the ESA compared with 14 of 20 embryologists, and the mean value for embryologists (P < 0.05), but no significant difference between the ESA and the remaining six embryologists or the expert committee.
conclusionsThe ESA achieved higher accuracy than most individual embryologists and the mean value for embryologists, supporting its potential as a standardized adjunct to expert judgement. Confirmation of effectiveness and generalizability requires adequately powered, prospective multicentre trials.
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.