Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can an artificial intelligence (AI)-based model predict human embryo viability using images captured by optical light microscopy? SUMMARY ANSWER We have combined computer vision image processing methods and deep learning techniques to create the non-invasive Life Whisperer AI model for robust prediction of embryo viability, as measured by clinical pregnancy outcome, using single static images of Day 5 blastocysts obtained from standard optical light microscope systems. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Embryo selection following IVF is a critical factor in determining the success of ensuing pregnancy. Traditional morphokinetic grading by trained embryologists can be subjective and variable, and other complementary techniques, such as time-lapse imaging, require costly equipment and have not reliably demonstrated predictive ability for the endpoint of clinical pregnancy. AI methods are being investigated as a promising means for improving embryo selection and predicting implantation and pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION These studies involved analysis of retrospectively collected data including standard optical light microscope images and clinical outcomes of 8886 embryos from 11 different IVF clinics, across three different countries, between 2011 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The AI-based model was trained using static two-dimensional optical light microscope images with known clinical pregnancy outcome as measured by fetal heartbeat to provide a confidence score for prediction of pregnancy. Predictive accuracy was determined by evaluating sensitivity, specificity and overall weighted accuracy, and was visualized using histograms of the distributions of predictions. Comparison to embryologists’ predictive accuracy was performed using a binary classification approach and a 5-band ranking comparison. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The Life Whisperer AI model showed a sensitivity of 70.1% for viable embryos while maintaining a specificity of 60.5% for non-viable embryos across three independent blind test sets from different clinics. The weighted overall accuracy in each blind test set was >63%, with a combined accuracy of 64.3% across both viable and non-viable embryos, demonstrating model robustness and generalizability beyond the result expected from chance. Distributions of predictions showed clear separation of correctly and incorrectly classified embryos. Binary comparison of viable/non-viable embryo classification demonstrated an improvement of 24.7% over embryologists’ accuracy (P = 0.047, n = 2, Student’s t test), and 5-band ranking comparison demonstrated an improvement of 42.0% over embryologists (P = 0.028, n = 2, Student’s t test). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The AI model developed here is limited to analysis of Day 5 embryos; therefore, further evaluation or modification of the model is needed to incorporate information from different time points. The endpoint described is clinical pregnancy as measured by fetal heartbeat, and this does not indicate the probability of live birth. The current investigation was performed with retrospectively collected data, and hence it will be of importance to collect data prospectively to assess real-world use of the AI model. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These studies demonstrated an improved predictive ability for evaluation of embryo viability when compared with embryologists’ traditional morphokinetic grading methods. The superior accuracy of the Life Whisperer AI model could lead to improved pregnancy success rates in IVF when used in a clinical setting. It could also potentially assist in standardization of embryo selection methods across multiple clinical environments, while eliminating the need for complex time-lapse imaging equipment. Finally, the cloud-based software application used to apply the Life Whisperer AI model in clinical practice makes it broadly applicable and globally scalable to IVF clinics worldwide. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Life Whisperer Diagnostics, Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company, Presagen Pty Ltd. Funding for the study was provided by Presagen with grant funding received from the South Australian Government: Research, Commercialisation and Startup Fund (RCSF). ‘In kind’ support and embryology expertise to guide algorithm development were provided by Ovation Fertility. J.M.M.H., D.P. and M.P. are co-owners of Life Whisperer and Presagen. Presagen has filed a provisional patent for the technology described in this manuscript (52985P pending). A.P.M. owns stock in Life Whisperer, and S.M.D., A.J., T.N. and A.P.M. are employees of Life Whisperer.
[1]
Minghao Chen,et al.
Does time-lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials
,
2017,
PloS one.
[2]
Henrik Karstoft,et al.
Automatic grading of human blastocysts from time-lapse imaging
,
2019,
Comput. Biol. Medicine.
[3]
David K Gardner,et al.
Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability.
,
2015,
Human reproduction update.
[4]
Jian Sun,et al.
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
,
2015,
2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).
[5]
Ehsan Kazemi,et al.
Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization
,
2019,
npj Digital Medicine.
[6]
Jimmy Ba,et al.
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
,
2014,
ICLR.
[7]
Leo Breiman,et al.
Random Forests
,
2001,
Machine Learning.
[8]
Kilian Q. Weinberger,et al.
Densely Connected Convolutional Networks
,
2016,
2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).
[9]
Sergey Ioffe,et al.
Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the Impact of Residual Connections on Learning
,
2016,
AAAI.
[10]
Andreas Christmann,et al.
Support vector machines
,
2008,
Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook.
[11]
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.
[12]
T. Baer,et al.
Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage
,
2010,
Nature Biotechnology.
[13]
Jeff G. Wang,et al.
In vitro fertilization (IVF): a review of 3 decades of clinical innovation and technological advancement
,
2006,
Therapeutics and clinical risk management.
[14]
D. Gardner,et al.
Assessment of embryo viability: the ability to select a single embryo for transfer--a review.
,
2003,
Placenta.
[15]
Marti A. Hearst.
Intelligent Connections: Battling with GA-Joe.
,
1998
.
[16]
R. Homburg,et al.
Biochemical Pregnancy During Assisted Conception: A Little Bit Pregnant
,
2013,
Journal of clinical medicine research.
[18]
D. Tran,et al.
Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer
,
2019,
Human reproduction.
[19]
Lior Rokach,et al.
Ensemble-based classifiers
,
2010,
Artificial Intelligence Review.
[20]
Kimmo Kaski,et al.
Deep Learning Fundus Image Analysis for Diabetic Retinopathy and Macular Edema Grading
,
2019,
Scientific Reports.
[21]
Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
,
1986,
Nature.