Fitting the data from embryo implantation prediction: Learning from label proportions

Machine learning techniques have been previously used to assist clinicians to select embryos for human-assisted reproduction. This work aims to show how an appropriate modeling of the problem can contribute to improve machine learning techniques for embryo selection. In this study, a dataset of 330 consecutive cycles (and associated embryos) carried out by the Unit of Assisted Reproduction of the Hospital Donostia (Spain) throughout 18 months has been analyzed. The problem of the embryo selection has been modeled by a novel weakly supervised paradigm, learning from label proportions, which considers all the available data, including embryos whose fate cannot be certainly established. Furthermore, all the collected features, describing cycles and embryos, have been considered in a multi-variate data analysis. Our integral solution has been successfully tested. Experimental results show that the proposed technique consistently outperforms an equivalent approach based on standard supervised classification. Embryos in this study were selected for transference according to the criteria of the Spanish Association for Reproduction Biology Studies. Obtained classification models outperform these criteria, specifically reordering medium-quality embryos.

[1]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Wrappers for Feature Subset Selection , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Luca Maria Gambardella,et al.  A Bayesian network model for predicting pregnancy after in vitro fertilization , 2013, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[3]  J. Parinaud,et al.  Clinical and biological parameters influencing implantation: score to determine number of embryos to transfer. , 2006, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[4]  Mehran Sahami,et al.  Learning Limited Dependence Bayesian Classifiers , 1996, KDD.

[5]  B Giraudeau,et al.  Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. , 2007, Human reproduction.

[6]  J. Batzofin,et al.  Expression of sHLA-G in supernatants of individually cultured 46-h embryos: a potentially valuable indicator of 'embryo competency' and IVF outcome. , 2004, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[7]  Pedro Larrañaga,et al.  A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics , 2007, Bioinform..

[8]  O. Kato,et al.  Noninvasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for noninvasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  L. Nieddu,et al.  Pattern recognition methods in human‐assisted reproduction , 2004 .

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

[11]  Pedro Larrañaga,et al.  Selection of human embryos for transfer by Bayesian classifiers , 2008, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[12]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Estimating labels from label proportions , 2008, ICML '08.

[13]  S. Roberts,et al.  Identification of viable embryos in IVF by non-invasive measurement of amino acid turnover. , 2004, Human reproduction.

[14]  A. Revelli,et al.  Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. , 2007, Human reproduction.

[15]  Mark A. Hall,et al.  Correlation-based Feature Selection for Machine Learning , 2003 .

[16]  H. Welch,et al.  Probabilities for singleton and multiple pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. , 1998, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  D. Barad,et al.  The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer. , 2006, Human reproduction.

[18]  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.

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

[20]  Ana Debón,et al.  Mathematical and Computer Modelling ( ) – Mathematical and Computer Modelling Mathematical Methodology to Obtain and Compare Different Embryo Scores , 2022 .

[21]  A. Lopata,et al.  Analysis of the benefits and risks of multiple embryo transfer. , 1983, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  J D Fisch,et al.  The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[23]  Daphne Koller,et al.  Probabilistic Relational Models , 1999, ILP.

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

[25]  T. Ebner,et al.  Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review. , 2003, Human reproduction update.

[26]  D. Gardner,et al.  Noninvasive assessment of human embryo nutrient consumption as a measure of developmental potential. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[27]  Eshre Campus Course Report Prevention of twin pregnancies after IVF/ICSI by single embryo transfer. ESHRE Campus Course Report. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[28]  L. Ohno-Machado,et al.  Is there an advantage in scoring early embryos on more than one day? , 2009, Human reproduction.

[29]  D. Hand,et al.  Idiot's Bayes—Not So Stupid After All? , 2001 .

[30]  Guy Lapalme,et al.  A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks , 2009, Inf. Process. Manag..

[31]  Iñaki Inza,et al.  Learning Bayesian network classifiers from label proportions , 2013, Pattern Recognit..

[32]  Tsuyoshi Murata,et al.  {m , 1934, ACML.

[33]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Bayesian Network Classifiers , 1997, Machine Learning.

[34]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[35]  Isabelle Guyon,et al.  An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[36]  S. Campbell,et al.  The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. , 1992, Human reproduction.

[37]  A. Revel,et al.  Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation. , 2006, Human reproduction update.

[38]  D. De Neubourg,et al.  Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. , 1999, Human reproduction.

[39]  Concha Bielza,et al.  Discrete Bayesian Network Classifiers , 2014, ACM Comput. Surv..

[40]  J. Tesarik,et al.  Follicular fluid markers of oocyte developmental potential. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[41]  L. Engmann,et al.  Trends in the incidence of births and multiple births and the factors that determine the probability of multiple birth after IVF treatment. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[42]  G. Wright,et al.  Embryonic platelet-activating factor: an indicator of embryo viability. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[43]  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.

[44]  K Petersen,et al.  Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. , 1997, Human reproduction.