ArticleF&S reports2026
Embryologist experience affects concordance with an artificial intelligence embryo ranking algorithm: benefit of artificial intelligence assistance.
Article in F&S reports, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To study the concordance between artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm selection and manual embryo selection, and how the concordance depends on the experience levels of embryologists. Design: Retrospective observational study. Subjects: A total of 1,321 preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) tested cycles from 1,165 patients with at least one transferred euploid embryo. Exposure: Embryo ranking was performed both manually and using an AI algorithm. Main Outcome Measures: The concordance rate between embryologists and an AI algorithm. Results: The overall concordance rate was 58.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.9%-61.2%) and increased with embryologist experience: Junior (51.3%, 95% CI: 44.3%-58.2%), Senior (57.1%, 95% CI: 53.3%-61.0%), and Senior+ (63.4%, 95% CI: 59.2%-67.7%). The fetal heartbeat (FHB) rates were 68.3% (95% CI: 65.1%-71.6%) in the concordant group and 66.5% (95% CI: 62.6%-70.5%) in the discordant group. The odds ratio between the two groups was not statistically significant, however when adjusting for the number of usable embryos, age and oocyte source, the odds ratio was significant. Conclusion: The concordance levels between embryologists and an AI algorithm depended significantly on the level of experience. The study also indicated that adjunctive use could potentially increase clinical 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.