The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization
Open accessAbstract
Visual morphology assessment is routinely used for evaluating of embryo quality and selecting human blastocysts for transfer after in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, the assessment produces different results between embryologists and as a result, the success rate of IVF remains low. To overcome uncertainties in embryo quality, multiple embryos are often implanted resulting in undesired multiple pregnancies and complications. Unlike in other imaging fields, human embryology and IVF have not yet leveraged artificial intelligence (AI) for unbiased, automated embryo assessment. We postulated that an AI approach trained on thousands of embryos can reliably predict embryo quality without human intervention. We implemented an AI approach based on deep neural networks (DNNs) to select highest quality embryos using a large collection of human embryo time-lapse images (about 50,000 images) from a high-volume fertility center in the United States. We developed a framework (STORK) based on Google’s Inception model. STORK predicts blastocyst quality with an AUC of >0.98 and generalizes well to images from other clinics outside the US and outperforms individual embryologists. Using clinical data for 2182 embryos, we created a decision tree to integrate embryo quality and patient age to identify scenarios associated with pregnancy likelihood. Our analysis shows that the chance of pregnancy based on individual embryos varies from 13.8% (age ≥41 and poor-quality) to 66.3% (age <37 and good-quality) depending on automated blastocyst quality assessment and patient age. In conclusion, our AI-driven approach provides a reproducible way to assess embryo quality and uncovers new, potentially personalized strategies to select embryos.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
Going deeper with convolutions
Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., & Rabinovich, A. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298594 · Cited by 48,562
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 · Cited by 21,856
A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis
Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., Setio, A. A. A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., van Ginneken, B., & Sánchez, C. I. (2017) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005 · Cited by 15,332
FaceNet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering
Schroff, F., Kalenichenko, D., & Philbin, J. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298682 · Cited by 15,267
Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21056 · Cited by 14,362
TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning
Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M., Ghemawat, S., Irving, G., Isard, M., et al. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.08695 · Cited by 11,822
Gulshan, V., Peng, L., Coram, M., Stumpe, M. C., Wu, D., Narayanaswamy, A., Venugopalan, S., Widner, K., Madams, T., Cuadros, J., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17216 · Cited by 7,697
An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data
Kass, G. V. (1980) · Applied Statistics · doi:10.2307/2986296 · Cited by 2,880
Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer
Gardner, D. K., Lane, M., Stevens, J., Schlenker, T., & Schoolcraft, W. B. (2000) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00518-5 · Cited by 2,091
Cited by
Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., & King, D. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2 · Cited by 3,136
VerMilyea, M., Hall, J. M. M., Diakiw, S. M., Johnston, A., Nguyen, T., Perugini, D., Miller, A., Picou, A., Murphy, A. P., & Perugini, M. (2020) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa013 · Cited by 331
Tran, D., Cooke, S., Illingworth, P. J., & Gardner, D. K. (2019) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dez064 · Cited by 312
Exploring stakeholder attitudes towards AI in clinical practice
Scott, I. A., Carter, S. M., & Coiera, E. (2021) · BMJ Health & Care Informatics · doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100450 · Cited by 193
Metadata
- Authors
- Khosravi, P., Kazemi, E., Zhan, Q., Malmsten, J. E., Toschi, M., Zisimopoulos, P., Sigaras, A., Lavery, S., Cooper, L. A. D., Hickman, C., Meseguer, M., Rosenwaks, Z., Elemento, O., Zaninovic, N., & Hajirasouliha, I.
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2019-04-04
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-21
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2927960701
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 43.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41746-019-0096-y
- The paper
- Khosravi, P., Kazemi, E., Zhan, Q., Malmsten, J. E., Toschi, M., Zisimopoulos, P., Sigaras, A., Lavery, S., Cooper, L. A. D., Hickman, C., Meseguer, M., Rosenwaks, Z., Elemento, O., Zaninovic, N., & Hajirasouliha, I. (2019). Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. npj Digital Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0096-y
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
