Advertisement

Artificial intelligence and machine learning for human reproduction and embryology presented at ASRM and ESHRE 2018

  • Carol Lynn CurchoeEmail author
  • Charles L. Bormann
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Sixteen artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches were reported at the 2018 annual congresses of the American Society for Reproductive Biology (9) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (7). Nearly every aspect of patient care was investigated, including sperm morphology, sperm identification, identification of empty or oocyte containing follicles, predicting embryo cell stages, predicting blastocyst formation from oocytes, assessing human blastocyst quality, predicting live birth from blastocysts, improving embryo selection, and for developing optimal IVF stimulation protocols. This represents a substantial increase in reports over 2017, where just one abstract each was reported at ASRM (AI) and ESHRE (ML). Our analysis reveals wide variability in how AI and ML methods are described (from not at all or very generic to fully describing the architectural framework) and large variability on accepted dataset sizes (from just 3 patients with 16 follicles in the smallest dataset to 661,060 images of 11,898 human embryos in one of the largest). AI and ML are clearly burgeoning methodologies in human reproduction and embryology and would benefit from early application of reporting standards.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Machine learning Human reproduction Embryology ASRM ASHRE 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Scientific Congress Supplement: Oral and Poster Session Abstracts. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(4):Supplement e1–e468Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scientific Congress Supplement: Oral and Poster Session Abstracts. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):Supplement e1–e422Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abstracts of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(Supplemental 1):i1–i539Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abstracts of the 34rd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(Supplemental 1):i1–i541Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge C, de Geyter C, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, Erb K, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(8):1638–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaufmann SJ, Eastaugh JL, Snowden S, Smye SW, Sharma V. The application of neural networks in predicting the outcome of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1454–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shin HC, Roth HR, Gao M, Lu L, Xu Z, Nogues I, et al. Deep convolutional neural networks for computer-aided detection: CNN architectures, dataset characteristics and transfer learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35(5):1285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee JG, Jun S, Cho YW, Lee H, Kim GB, Seo JB, et al. Deep learning in medical imaging: general overview. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(4):570–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shen D, Wu G, Suk HI. Deep learning in medical image analysis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2017;19:221–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ng K, Steinhubl SR, deFilippi C, Dey S, Stewart WF. Early detection of heart failure using electronic health records: practical implications for time before diagnosis, data diversity, data quantity, and data density. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9(6):649–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bringing Precision Medicine to Community Oncologists. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(1):6–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siristatidis C, Vogiatzi P, Pouliakis A, Trivella M, Papantoniou N, Bettocchi S. Predicting IVF outcome: a proposed web-based system using artificial intelligence. In Vivo. 2016;30(4):507–12.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meseguer M, Kruhne U, Laursen S. Full in vitro fertilization laboratory mechanization: toward robotic assisted reproduction? Fertil Steril. 2012;97(6):1277–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siristatidis CS, Chrelias C, Pouliakis A, Katsimanis E, Kassanos D. Artificial neural networks in gynaecological diseases: current and potential future applications. Med Sci Monit. 2010;16(10):RA231–6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siristatidis C, Pouliakis A, Chrelias C, Kassanos D. Artificial intelligence in IVF: a need. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011;57(4):179–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milewski R, Milewska AJ, Więsak T, Morgan A. Comparison of Artificial Neural Networks and Logistic Regression Analysis in Pregnancy Prediction Using the In Vitro Fertilization Treatment. Stud Logic Grammar Rhetoric. 2013;35(48):39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Almeida JL, Cole KD, Plant AL. Standards for cell line authentication and beyond. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(6):e1002476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helsby MA, Fenn JR, Chalmers AD. Reporting research antibody use: how to increase experimental reproducibility. F1000Res. 2013;2:153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li MM, Datto M, Duncavage EJ, Kulkarni S, Lindeman NI, Roy S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in Cancer: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19(1):4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luo W, Phung D, Tran T, Gupta S, Rana S, Karmakar C, et al. Guidelines for developing and reporting machine learning predictive models in biomedical research: a multidisciplinary view. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(12):e323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beleites C, Neugebauer U, Bocklitz T, Krafft C, Popp J. Sample size planning for classification models. Anal Chim Acta. 2013;760:25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, Maggiulli R, Elliott T, Wright G, et al. Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wong CC, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, de Jonge CJ, Baer TM, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(10):1115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):412–9 e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1277–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rubio I, Galán A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1287–1294 e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cicconet M, Gutwein M, Gunsalus KC, Geiger D. Label free cell-tracking and division detection based on 2D time-lapse images for lineage analysis of early embryo development. Comput Biol Med. 2014;51:24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Basile N, Vime P, Florensa M, Aparicio Ruiz B, García Velasco JA, Remohí J, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):276–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tian Y, Yin YB, Duan FQ, Wang WZ, Wang W, Zhou MQ. Automatic blastomere recognition from a single embryo image. Comput Math Methods Med. 2014;2014:628312.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Santos Filho E, et al. A method for semi-automatic grading of human blastocyst microscope images. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2641–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barrie A, Homburg R, McDowell G, Brown J, Kingsland C, Troup S. 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. 2017;107(3):613–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Diamond MP, Suraj V, Behnke EJ, Yang X, Angle MJ, Lambe-Steinmiller JC, 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. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(1):61–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Armstrong S, Arroll N, Cree LM, Jordan V, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2:CD011320.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD011320.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Yuan J, Liu F. 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. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rocha JC, Passalia FJ, Matos FD, Takahashi MB, Ciniciato DS, Maserati MP, et al. A method based on artificial intelligence to fully automatize the evaluation of bovine blastocyst images. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):7659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dimitriadis I, Christou G, Dickinson K, McLellan S, Brock M, Souter I, et al. Cohort embryo selection (CES): a quick and simple method for selecting cleavage stage embryos that will become high quality blastocysts (HQB). Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e162–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. How PGS/PGT-A laboratories succeeded in losing all credibility. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;37(2):242–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grati FR, Gallazzi G, Branca L, Maggi F, Simoni G, Yaron Y. Response: how PGS/PGT-A laboratories succeeded in losing all credibility. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;37(2):246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Munne S, et al. Response: how PGS/PGT-a laboratories succeeded in losing all credibility. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;37(2):247–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Penzias AS. Recurrent IVF failure: other factors. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(5):1033–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM, Goossens V, Altarescu G, Bonduelle M, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1767–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Diego Fertility CenterSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations