ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Clinical evaluation and predictive model development of AI-based non-invasive embryo selection in
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Embryo selection remains one of the most critical determinants of IVF success. Conventional embryo grading relies primarily on morphological assessment and is subject to inter-observer variability and limited predictive accuracy. Recent advances in AI have enabled non-invasive systems to analyze embryological and morphokinetic features, improving embryo selection and reproductive outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of an AI-based non-invasive embryo selection system and develop predictive models for IVF outcomes among patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatment. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary fertility center involving 300 IVF cycles from January 2020 to December 2024. Clinical, demographic, embryological, and AI-derived data were extracted from electronic medical records and laboratory databases. Primary outcome was clinical pregnancy; secondary outcomes included implantation, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, and model performance. Machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, random forest, SVM, gradient boosting, and neural networks) were evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, and AUC-ROC. Results: A total of 300 IVF cycles and 742 embryos were analyzed. Implantation, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rates were 60.7%, 56.0%, 51.3%, and 48.7%, respectively. Higher AI-derived embryo scores were significantly associated with improved outcomes. Clinical pregnancy rates increased progressively across AI score categories, from 18.5% (scores <55) to 74.0% (scores ≥85, p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression identified maternal age (AOR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88-0.97), AMH (AOR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.04-1.34), high-quality blastocyst (AOR = 2.41; 95% CI: 1.54-3.78), and AI score ≥85 (AOR = 3.67; 95% CI: 2.12-6.35) as independent predictors of clinical pregnancy. The developed AI model demonstrated excellent performance, with accuracy 84.3%, sensitivity 82.1%, specificity 79.8%, and AUC-ROC 0.89. Conclusion: AI-based non-invasive embryo selection showed significant predictive value for reproductive outcomes and outperformed conventional assessment in identifying embryos with high implantation potential. AI-derived embryo scores were independently associated with clinical pregnancy success, and the model exhibited excellent discrimination and calibration. These findings support integrating AI-assisted embryo assessment into contemporary IVF practice and highlight its potential to enhance personalized reproductive care.
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.