A machine learning system with reinforcement capacity for predicting the fate of an ART embryo

References

• Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Andersen CY, Bosch E, Bühler K, Ferraretti AP, De Placido G, Mollo A, Fischer R, et al. 2018. Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 109(4):644–664. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen AL. 2012. The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Hum Reprod. 27(9):2649–2657. doi:10.1093/humrep/des210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrie A, Homburg R, McDowell G, Brown J, Kingsland C, Troup S. 2017. Examining the efficacy of six published time-lapse imaging embryo selection algorithms to predict implantation to demonstrate the need for the development of specific, in-house morphokinetic selection algorithms. Fertil Steril. 107(3):613–621. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, Aparicio Ruiz B, García Velasco JA, Remohí J, Meseguer M. 2015. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of  implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 30(2):276–283. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 67(1):1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S. 2013. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Reprod Biomed Online. 27(2):140–146. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.04.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrasco B, Arroyo G, Gil Y, Gómez MJ, Rodríguez I, Barri PN, Veiga A, Boada M. 2017. Selecting embryos with the highest implantation potential using data mining and decision tree based on classical embryo morphology and morphokinetics. J Assist Reprod Genet. 34(8):983–990. doi:10.1007/s10815-017-0955-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chamayou S, Patrizio P, Storaci G, Tomaselli V, Alecci C, Ragolia C, Crescenzo C, Guglielmino A. 2013. The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. J Assist Reprod Genet. 30(5):703–710. doi:10.1007/s10815-013-9992-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coello A, Meseguer M, Galán A, Alegre L, Remohí J, Cobo A. 2017. Analysis of the morphological dynamics of blastocysts after vitrification/warming: defining new predictive variables of implantation. Fertil Steril. 108(4):659–666.e4. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz M, Garrido N, Herrero J, Pérez-Cano I, Muñoz M, Meseguer M. 2012. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 25(4):371–381. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.06.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dal Canto M, Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, De Ponti E, Novara PV, Brambillasca F, Comi R, Fadini R. 2012. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 25(5):474–480. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.07.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, Scaravelli G, Smeenk J, Vidakovic S, Goossens V, et al. 2018. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHREThe European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 33(9):1586–1601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Ziegler D, Pirtea P, Andersen CY, Ayoubi JM. 2018. Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), progesterone, and estrogen in luteal phase support after hCG triggering, and when in pregnancy hormonal support can be stopped. Fertil Steril. 109(5):749–755. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dessolle L, Fréour T, Ravel C, Jean M, Colombel A, Daraï E, Barrière P. 2011. Predictive factors of healthy term birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 26(5):1220–1226. doi:10.1093/humrep/der039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishel S, Baker D, Elson J, Ragunath M, Atkinson G, Shaker A, Omar A, Kazem R, Beccles A, Greer IA. 2016. Precision medicine in assisted conception: a multicenter observational treatment cohort study of the annexin A5 M2 haplotype as a biomarker for antithrombotic treatment to improve pregnancy outcome. EBioMedicine. 10:298–304. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.06.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishel S, Campbell A, Montgomery S, Smith R, Nice L, Duffy S, Jenner L, Berrisford K, Kellam L, Smith R, et al. 2017. Live births after embryo selection using morphokinetics versus conventional morphology: a retrospective analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 35(4):407–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freour T, Basile N, Barriere P, Meseguer M. 2015. Systematic review on clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time-lapse monitoring. Hum Reprod Update. 21(1):153–154. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmu054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. 1999. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Curr Opin Obstet Gyn. 11(3):307–311. doi:10.1097/00001703-199906000-00013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman LR, Goldberg J, Falcone T, Austin C, Desai N. 2016. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 105(2):275–285.e10. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guido C, Perrotta I, Panza S, Middea E, Avena P, Santoro M, Marsico S, Imbrogno P, Andò S, Aquila S. 2011. Human sperm physiology: estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) and estrogen receptor beta (ERβ) influence sperm metabolism and may be involved in the pathophysiology of varicocele-associated male infertility. J Cell Physiol. 226(12):3403–3412. doi:10.1002/jcp.22703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashimoto S, Kato N, Saeki K, Morimoto Y. 2012. Selection of high-potential embryos by culture in poly(dimethylsiloxane) microwells and time-lapse imaging. Fertil Steril. 97(2):332–337. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.042.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrero J, Tejera A, Albert C, Vidal C, de Los Santos MJ, Meseguer M. 2013. A time to look back: analysis of morphokinetic characteristics of human embryo development. Fertil Steril. 100(6):1602–1609.e1–4. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.08.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaser DJ, Bormann CL, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. 2017. A pilot randomized controlled trial of Day 3 single embryo transfer with adjunctive time-lapse selection versus Day 5 single embryo transfer with or without adjunctive time-lapse selection. Hum Reprod. 32(8):1598–1603. doi:10.1093/humrep/dex231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khosravi P, Kazemi E, Zhan Q, Malmsten JE, Toschi M, Zisimopoulos P, Sigaras A, Lavery S, Cooper LAD, Hickman C, et al. 2019. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Digit Med. 2:21. doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0096-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, D’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Goossens V, European IVF-Monitoring Consortium, for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. 2014. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE†. Hum Reprod. 29(10):2099–2113. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. 2016. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril. 105(3):656–662.e1. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manna C, Nanni L, Lumini A, Pappalardo S. 2013. Artificial intelligence techniques for embryo and oocyte classification. Reprod Biomed Online. 26(1):42–49. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.09.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matos FD, Rocha JC, Nogueira MFG. 2014. A method using artificial neural networks to morphologically assess mouse blastocyst quality. J Anim Sci. 56(1):15. doi:10.1186/2055-0391-56-15.
   Google Scholar
• Mizobe Y, Oya N, Iwakiri R, Yoshida N, Sato Y, Miyoshi K, Tokunaga M, Ezono Y. 2016. Effects of early cleavage patterns of human embryos on subsequent in vitro development and implantation. Fertil Steril. 106(2):348–353.e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motato Y, de Los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohí J, Meseguer M. 2016. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril. 105(2):376–384.e9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandian Z, Marjoribanks J, Ozturk O, Serour G, Bhattacharya S. 2013. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 7:CD003416.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. 2016. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Hum Reprod. 31(10):2231–2244. doi:10.1093/humrep/dew188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A. 2005. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update. 11(6):575–593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team. 2018. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models [Internet]. place unknown. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
   Google Scholar
• Poulsen V, Ingerslev HJ, Kirkegaard K. 2017. Elective embryo transfers on Day 6 reduce implantation compared with transfers on Day 5. Hum Reprod. 32(6):1238–1243. doi:10.1093/humrep/dex059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. 2005. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics. 21(20):7881. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siristatidis C, Komitopoulou MA, Makris A, Sialakouma A, Botzaki M, Mastorakos G, Salamalekis G, Bettocchi S, Palmer GA. 2015. Morphokinetic parameters of early embryo development via time lapse monitoring and their effect on embryo selection and ICSI outcomes: a prospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 32(4):563–570. doi:10.1007/s10815-015-0436-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolwijk AM, Wetzels AM, Braat DD. 2000. Cumulative probability of achieving an ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection according to a woman’s age, subfertility diagnosis and primary or secondary subfertility. Hum Reprod. 15(1):203–209. doi:10.1093/humrep/15.1.203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone BA, March CM, Ringler GE, Baek KJ, Marrs RP. 2014. Casting for determinants of blastocyst yield and of rates of implantation and of pregnancy after blastocyst transfers. Fertil Steril. 102(4):1055–1064. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran D, Cooke S, Illingworth PJ, Gardner DK. 2019. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 34(6):1011–1018. doi:10.1093/humrep/dez064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uyar A, Bener A, Ciray HN. 2015. Predictive modeling of implantation outcome in an in vitro fertilization setting: an application of machine learning methods. Med Decis Mak. 35(6):714–725. doi:10.1177/0272989X14535984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogiatzi P, Pouliakis A, Siristatidis C. 2019. An artificial neural network for the prediction of assisted reproduction outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 36(7):1441–1448. doi:10.1007/s10815-019-01498-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickham H. 2016. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis [Internet]. place unknown: Springer-Verlag New York. http://ggplot2.org.
   Google Scholar
• Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM, Reijo Pera RA. 2010. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 28(10):1115–1121. doi:10.1038/nbt.1686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, editor. 2010. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Yang ST, Shi JX, Gong F, Zhang SP, Lu CF, Tan K, Leng LZ, Hao M, He H, Gu YF, et al. 2015. Cleavage pattern predicts developmental potential of day 3 human embryos produced by IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 30(6):625–634. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.02.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaninovic N, Nohales M, Zhan Q, de Los Santos ZMJ, Sierra J, Rosenwaks Z, Meseguer M. 2019. A comparison of morphokinetic markers predicting blastocyst formation and implantation potential from two large clinical data sets. J Assist Reprod Genet. 36(4):637–646. doi:10.1007/s10815-018-1396-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar