Time-lapse algorithms and morphological selection of day-5 embryos for transfer: a preclinical validation study.

OBJECTIVE To determine the agreement between published time-lapse algorithms in selecting the best day-5 embryo for transfer, as well as the agreement between these algorithms and embryologists. DESIGN Prospective study. SETTING Private in vitro fertilization center. PATIENT(S) Four hundred and twenty-eight embryos from 100 cycles cultured in the EmbryoScope. INTERVENTION(S) None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Interalgorithm agreement as assessed by the Fleiss kappa coefficient. RESULT(S) Of seven published algorithms analyzed in this study, only one of the 18 possible pairs showed very good agreement (κ = 0.867); one pair showed good agreement (κ = 0.725), four pairs showed fair agreement (κ = 0.226-0.334), and the remaining 12 pairs showed poor agreement (κ = 0.008-0.149). Even in the best-case scenario, the majority of algorithms showed poor to moderate kappa scores (κ = 0.337-0.722) for the assessment of agreement between the embryo(s) selected as "best" by the algorithms and the embryo that was chosen by the majority (>5) of embryologists, as well as with the embryo that was actually selected in the laboratory on the day of transfer (κ = 0.315-0.802). CONCLUSION(S) The results of this study raise concerns as to whether the tested algorithms are applicable in different clinical settings, emphasizing the need for proper external validation before clinical use.

[1]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[2]  M. Meseguer,et al.  Oocyte insemination techniques are related to alterations of embryo developmental timing in an oocyte donation model. , 2013, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[3]  Nina Desai,et al.  Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. , 2016, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  Interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of embryo quality assessments , 2006 .

[5]  E. Çalışkan,et al.  Reproducibility of a time-lapse embryo selection model based on morphokinetic data in a sequential culture media setting. , 2014, Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association.

[6]  A. Wdowiak,et al.  The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on the dynamics of the embryonic development in intracytoplasmatic sperm injection. , 2015, Reproductive biology.

[7]  A. Viera,et al.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. , 2005, Family medicine.

[8]  Shehua Shen,et al.  Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. , 2014, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[9]  R. Milewski,et al.  Do morphokinetic data sets inform pregnancy potential? , 2016, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[10]  Elena De Ponti,et al.  Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[11]  J. Fleiss.  Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[12]  María Cruz,et al.  Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[13]  J. Lammers,et al.  Comparison of embryo morphokinetics after in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection in smoking and nonsmoking women. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  Samantha Duffy,et al.  Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. , 2013, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[15]  M. Meseguer,et al.  The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of  implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. , 2015, Human reproduction.

[16]  U. Kesmodel,et al.  A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time-lapse incubator , 2012, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[17]  C. Venetis,et al.  Morphokinetic parameters using time-lapse technology and day 5 embryo quality: a prospective cohort study , 2015, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[18]  Christos A. Venetis,et al.  Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists during selection of a single Day 5 embryo for transfer: a multicenter study , 2017, Human reproduction.

[19]  Thomas Fréour,et al.  External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. , 2015, Fertility and sterility.

[20]  Marcos Meseguer,et al.  Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[21]  D. Gardner,et al.  Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  M. Wikland,et al.  Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[23]  G. Adamson,et al.  Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. , 2016, Fertility and sterility.

[24]  K. Kirkegaard,et al.  Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. , 2015, Fertility and sterility.

[25]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[26]  Shehua Shen,et al.  Using the Eeva Test™ adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience , 2014, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[27]  R. Edwards,et al.  The growth of human preimplantation embryos in vitro. , 1981, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[28]  M. Meseguer,et al.  Dose of recombinant FSH and oestradiol concentration on day of HCG affect embryo development kinetics. , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[29]  M. Bahçeci,et al.  Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media—a sibling oocyte study , 2012, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[30]  Linda Sundvall,et al.  Inter- and intra-observer variability of time-lapse annotations. , 2013, Human reproduction.

[31]  M. Meseguer,et al.  The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[32]  Jacob F Mayer,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. , 2006, Fertility and sterility.

[33]  D Hlinka,et al.  Time-lapse cleavage rating predicts human embryo viability. , 2012, Physiological research.

[34]  K. Kirkegaard,et al.  Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[35]  Roy Homburg,et al.  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. , 2017, Fertility and sterility.

[36]  Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. , 2014, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[37]  Markus Montag,et al.  Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3 , 2016, Human reproduction.

[38]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[39]  Peter Roberts,et al.  Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. , 2016, Fertility and sterility.

[40]  Shehua Shen,et al.  Biomarkers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, validation, and practical application. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[41]  M. Meseguer,et al.  Limited implantation success of direct-cleaved human zygotes: a time-lapse study. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[42]  Alice A. Chen,et al.  Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. , 2013, Fertility and sterility.

[43]  J. Shaw,et al.  A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: Its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality , 1986, Journal of in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer.

[44]  M. Meseguer,et al.  The human first cell cycle: impact on implantation. , 2014, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[45]  A L Mikkelsen,et al.  The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. , 2012, Human reproduction.