Objective way to support embryo transfer: a probabilistic decision.

STUDY QUESTION Is it feasible to identify factors that significantly affect the clinical outcome of IVF-ICSI cycles and use them to reliably design a predictor of implantation? SUMMARY ANSWER The Bayesian network (BN) identified top-history embryos, female age and the insemination technique as the most relevant factors for predicting the occurrence of pregnancy (AUC, area under curve, of 0.72). In addition, it could discriminate between no implantation and single or twin implantations in a prognostic model that can be used prospectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The key requirement for achieving a single live birth in an IVF-ICSI cycle is the capacity to estimate embryo viability in relation to maternal receptivity. Nevertheless, the lack of a strong predictor imposes several restrictions on this strategy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Medical histories, laboratory data and clinical outcomes of all fresh transfer cycles performed at the International Institute for Reproductive Medicine of Lugano, Switzerland, in the period 2006-2008 (n = 388 cycles), were retrospectively evaluated and analyzed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Patients were unselected for age, sperm parameters or other infertility criteria. Before being admitted to treatment, uterine anomalies were excluded by diagnostic hysteroscopy. To evaluate the factors possibly related to embryo viability and maternal receptivity, the class variable was categorized as pregnancy versus no pregnancy and the features included: female age, number of previous cycles, insemination technique, sperm of proven fertility, the number of transferred top-history embryos, the number of transferred top-quality embryos, the number of follicles >14 mm and the level of estradiol on the day of HCG administration. To assess the classifier, the indicators of performance were computed by cross-validation. Two statistical models were used: the decision tree and the BN. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHOICE The decision tree identified the number of transferred top-history embryos, female age and the insemination technique as the features discriminating between pregnancy and no pregnancy. The model achieved an accuracy of 81.5% that was significantly higher in comparison with the trivial classifier, but the increase was so modest that the model was clinically useless for predictions of pregnancy. The BN could more reliably predict the occurrence of pregnancy with an AUC of 0.72, and confirmed the importance of top-history embryos, female age and insemination technique in determining implantation. In addition, it could discriminate between no implantation, single implantation and twin implantation with the AUC of 0.72, 0.64 and 0.83, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The relatively small sample of the study did not permit the inclusion of more features that could also have a role in determining the clinical outcome. The design of this study was retrospective to identify the relevant features; a prospective study is now needed to verify the validity of the model. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The resulting predictive model can discriminate with reasonable reliability between pregnancy and no pregnancy, and can also predict the occurrence of a single pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. This could represent an effective support for deciding how many embryos and which embryos to transfer for each couple. Due to its flexibility, the number of variables in the predictor can easily be increased to include other features that may affect implantation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS This study was supported by a grant, CTI Medtech Project Number: 9707.1 PFLS-L, Swiss Confederation. No competing interests are declared.

[1]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. , 2007, Human reproduction.

[2]  S. Loh,et al.  A cumulative embryo scoring system for the prediction of pregnancy outcome following intracytoplasmic sperm injection. , 2008, Singapore medical journal.

[3]  M. Zernicka-Goetz,et al.  Rhythmic actomyosin-driven contractions induced by sperm entry predict mammalian embryo viability , 2011, Nature communications.

[4]  J. Březinová,et al.  Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology Evaluation of Day One Embryo Quality and Ivf Outcome – a Comparison of Two Scoring Systems , 2022 .

[5]  B. Horsthemke,et al.  Assisted reproduction: the epigenetic perspective. , 2005, Human reproduction update.

[6]  B. Carr,et al.  Late stages of embryo progression are a much better predictor of clinical pregnancy than early cleavage in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cycles with blastocyst-stage transfer. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[7]  A. Kuliev,et al.  Frequency and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in human oocytes , 2005, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[8]  Luca Gianaroli,et al.  Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results , 2011, Human reproduction.

[9]  Bagyalakshmi Mathiyalagan,et al.  Prediction of embryo developmental potential and pregnancy based on early stage morphological characteristics. , 2006, Fertility and sterility.

[10]  Achille Tolino,et al.  High outcome predictability after IVF using a combined score for zygote and embryo morphology and growth rate. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[11]  B. Cairns,et al.  Genome-wide analysis identifies changes in histone retention and epigenetic modifications at developmental and imprinted gene loci in the sperm of infertile men. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[12]  S. Roberts,et al.  Modelling the impact of single embryo transfer in a national health service IVF programme. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[13]  O. Ozturk,et al.  Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  N. Treff,et al.  Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray-based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[15]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  Exogenous luteinizing hormone in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for assisted reproduction techniques. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[16]  S. Roberts,et al.  Embryo and uterine influences on IVF outcomes: an analysis of a UK multi-centre cohort. , 2010, Human reproduction.

[17]  E. Coonen,et al.  Effect of in vitro culture of human embryos on birthweight of newborns. , 2010, Human reproduction.

[18]  H. Taylor,et al.  The role of growth factors and cytokines during implantation: endocrine and paracrine interactions. , 2009, Seminars in reproductive medicine.

[19]  C. Deane,et al.  Reduced amounts and abnormal forms of phospholipase C zeta (PLCzeta) in spermatozoa from infertile men. , 2009, Human reproduction.

[20]  R. Goodacre,et al.  Predicting human embryo viability: the road to non-invasive analysis of the secretome using metabolic footprinting. , 2007, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[21]  A. Trounson,et al.  Glucose metabolism of human morula and blastocyst-stage embryos and its relationship to viability after transfer. , 2001, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[22]  Aldo Volpes,et al.  Number of good quality embryos on day 3 is predictive for both pregnancy and implantation rates in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[23]  Ian Witten,et al.  Data Mining , 2000 .

[24]  C. Racowsky,et al.  National collection of embryo morphology data into Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System: associations among day 3 cell number, fragmentation and blastomere asymmetry, and live birth rate. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[25]  Lisa Cowan,et al.  The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[26]  Luca Gianaroli,et al.  Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[27]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  Gene expression profiling of human oocytes following in vivo or in vitro maturation. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[28]  C R Weinberg,et al.  Evaluating effects of exposures on embryo viability and uterine receptivity in in vitro fertilization. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  B. Källén,et al.  Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[30]  อนิรุธ สืบสิงห์,et al.  Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques , 2014 .

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

[32]  E. Kuijk,et al.  The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. , 2010, Reproduction.

[33]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  Paternal contribution to aneuploidy in preimplantation embryos. , 2009, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[34]  R. Saith,et al.  Relationships between the developmental potential of human in-vitro fertilization embryos and features describing the embryo, oocyte and follicle. , 1998, Human reproduction update.

[35]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. , 2009, Human reproduction update.

[36]  S. Bhattacharya,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[37]  Veljko Vlaisavljevic,et al.  Developmental capacity of different morphological types of day 5 human morulae and blastocysts. , 2004, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[38]  Luca Gianaroli,et al.  Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. , 2003, Fertility and sterility.

[39]  C O S Sorzano,et al.  Quantitative morphometrical characterization of human pronuclear zygotes. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[40]  L. Nardo,et al.  The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[41]  J Cohen,et al.  Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. , 2007, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[42]  A. Pizzey,et al.  Fall in implantation rates following ICSI with sperm with high DNA fragmentation. , 2010, Human reproduction.

[43]  J E Swain,et al.  Advances in embryo culture platforms: novel approaches to improve preimplantation embryo development through modifications of the microenvironment. , 2011, Human reproduction update.

[44]  S. Roberts,et al.  Models for assisted conception data with embryo‐specific covariates , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[45]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Probabilistic Graphical Models , 2009, Data-Driven Computational Neuroscience.

[46]  T. Baer,et al.  Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[47]  C. Bergh,et al.  Double embryo transfer gives good pregnancy and live birth rates in poor responders with a modest increase in multiple birth rates: results from an observational study , 2011, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.

[48]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  Sperm and Blastomere Aneuploidy Detection in Reproductive Genetics and Medicine , 2005, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[49]  Bi Song,et al.  Novel strategy with potential to identify developmentally competent IVF blastocysts. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[50]  F. Kung,et al.  The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[51]  E. Margalioth,et al.  Investigation and treatment of repeated implantation failure following IVF-ET. , 2006, Human reproduction.

[52]  D. Gardner,et al.  Proteomic analysis of individual human embryos to identify novel biomarkers of development and viability. , 2006, Fertility and sterility.

[53]  J. Kremer,et al.  External validation of the templeton model for predicting success after IVF. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[54]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  Predicting aneuploidy in human oocytes: key factors which affect the meiotic process , 2010, Human reproduction.

[55]  S. Fisher,et al.  Implantation and the survival of early pregnancy. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[56]  Marcos Meseguer,et al.  Full in vitro fertilization laboratory mechanization: toward robotic assisted reproduction? , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[57]  H. Baker,et al.  Relationships between timing of syngamy, female age and implantation potential in human in vitro-fertilised oocytes. , 2007, Reproduction, fertility, and development.

[58]  L. Gianaroli,et al.  Effect of inner myometrium fibroid on reproductive outcome after IVF. , 2005, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[59]  K Lundin,et al.  Early embryo cleavage is a strong indicator of embryo quality in human IVF. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[60]  R. Henshaw,et al.  Day 4 embryo selection is equal to Day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[61]  C. Simón,et al.  Paracrine regulators of implantation. , 2000, Bailliere's best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology.

[62]  A. Astrup,et al.  Obesity : Preventing and managing the global epidemic , 2000 .