Can time-lapse culture combined with artificial intelligence improve ongoing pregnancy rates in fresh transfer cycles of single cleavage stage embryos?
Female
Humans
Pregnancy
Retrospective Studies
Artificial Intelligence
Pregnancy Rate
Adult
Time-Lapse Imaging
Embryo Transfer
/ methods
Embryo Culture Techniques
/ methods
Cleavage Stage, Ovum
/ physiology
Fertilization in Vitro
/ methods
Pregnancy Outcome
Embryonic Development
/ physiology
Embryo Implantation
artificial intelligence
fresh cycle
iDAscores
single cleavage stage embryo transfer
time-lapse culture
Journal
Frontiers in endocrinology
ISSN: 1664-2392
Titre abrégé: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
14
06
2024
accepted:
12
08
2024
medline:
13
9
2024
pubmed:
13
9
2024
entrez:
13
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With the rapid advancement of time-lapse culture and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for embryo screening, pregnancy rates in assisted reproductive technology (ART) have significantly improved. However, clinical pregnancy rates in fresh cycles remain dependent on the number and type of embryos transferred. The selection of embryos with the highest implantation potential is critical for embryologists and influences transfer strategies in fertility centers. The superiority of AI over traditional morphological scoring for ranking cleavage-stage embryos based on their implantation potential remains controversial. This retrospective study analyzed 105 fresh embryo transfer cycles at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine from August 2023 to March 2024, following IVF/ICSI treatment at the cleavage stage. All embryos were cultured using time-lapse technology and scored using an automated AI model (iDAScore V2.0). Embryos were categorized into three groups based on the iDAScore V2.0: Group A (8 cells, iDA: 1.0-5.7); Group B (8 cells, iDA: 5.8-8.0); and Group C (>8 cells, iDA: 5.8-8.0). Clinical treatment outcomes, embryonic development, and pregnancy outcomes were analyzed and compared across the groups. Baseline characteristics such as patient age, AMH levels, AFC, and basal sex hormones showed no significant differences among the three groups (p > 0.05). The iDAscores were significantly higher in Group C (7.3 ± 0.5) compared to Group B (6.7 ± 0.5) and the iDAscores were significantly higher in Group B (6.7 ± 0.5) compared to Group A (4.8 ± 1.0) (p < 0.001).The mean number of high-quality embryos was highest in Group C (4.7 ± 3.0), followed by Group B (3.6 ± 1.7) and Group A (2.1 ± 1.2) (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference (p = 0.392) in the ongoing pregnancy rate for single cleavage-stage transfers between Group B (54.5%, 30/55) and Group A (38.1%, 8/21), although there was a tendency for Group B to be higher. Combining time-lapse culture with AI scoring may enhance ongoing pregnancy rates in single cleavage-stage fresh transfer cycles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39268241
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1449035
pmc: PMC11390367
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1449035Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wang, Wei, Huang, Yin and Ma.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
BMJ. 2020 Aug 5;370:m2519
pubmed: 32759285
Hum Reprod Update. 2022 Feb 28;28(2):255-281
pubmed: 34967896
Hum Reprod. 2021 May 17;36(6):1666-1673
pubmed: 33709110
Nat Med. 2022 Dec;28(12):2646-2653
pubmed: 36522605
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2023 Jun 23;11:1164757
pubmed: 37427383
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024 Mar;41(3):563-580
pubmed: 38246922
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jun;26(6):1270-83
pubmed: 21502182
Fertil Steril. 2023 Sep;120(3 Pt 1):449-456
pubmed: 37086833
Reprod Biomed Online. 2022 Mar;44(3):435-448
pubmed: 35027326
Lancet Digit Health. 2023 Jan;5(1):e1
pubmed: 36543474
Hum Reprod Update. 2023 Sep 5;29(5):570-633
pubmed: 37192834
Hum Reprod. 2022 Jan 28;37(2):212-225
pubmed: 34791223
Afr J Reprod Health. 2023 Apr;27(4):73-76
pubmed: 37584910
Fertil Steril. 2023 Jul;120(1):17-23
pubmed: 37211062
Hum Reprod. 2022 Apr 1;37(4):708-717
pubmed: 35143661
Hum Reprod. 2020 Jun 1;35(6):1306-1318
pubmed: 32478400
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2023 Dec;49(12):2792-2803
pubmed: 37778750
Hum Reprod. 2015 Mar;30(3):530-42
pubmed: 25574031
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2022 Aug 04;26(3):432-443
pubmed: 35001523
Hum Reprod. 2024 Apr 3;39(4):647-657
pubmed: 38364208
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024 May 22;22(1):58
pubmed: 38778410
Fertil Steril. 2022 Jun;117(6):1203-1212
pubmed: 35367059
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 19;5:CD002118
pubmed: 35588094
Fertil Steril. 2019 Apr;111(4):753-762.e1
pubmed: 30683589
Hum Reprod Open. 2023 Aug 15;2023(3):hoad031
pubmed: 37588797
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Feb;32(2):142-6
pubmed: 26673100
Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2019 Jul 25;48(5):580-585
pubmed: 31901035
Hum Reprod Update. 2020 Jan 1;26(1):16-42
pubmed: 31774124
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022 Mar;4(2S):100551
pubmed: 34896357
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023 Aug 31;14:1225121
pubmed: 37727454