Biomedicines (Mar 2022)

Reporting on the Value of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting the Optimal Embryo for Transfer: A Systematic Review including Data Synthesis

  • Konstantinos Sfakianoudis,
  • Evangelos Maziotis,
  • Sokratis Grigoriadis,
  • Agni Pantou,
  • Georgia Kokkini,
  • Anna Trypidi,
  • Polina Giannelou,
  • Athanasios Zikopoulos,
  • Irene Angeli,
  • Terpsithea Vaxevanoglou,
  • Konstantinos Pantos,
  • Mara Simopoulou

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10030697
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 3
p. 697

Abstract

Read online

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been gaining support in the field of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Despite the promising existing data, AI cannot yet claim gold-standard status, which serves as the rationale for this study. This systematic review and data synthesis aims to evaluate and report on the predictive capabilities of AI-based prediction models regarding IVF outcome. The study has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021242097). Following a systematic search of the literature in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library, 18 studies were identified as eligible for inclusion. Regarding live-birth, the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics (SROC) was 0.905, while the partial AUC (pAUC) was 0.755. The Observed: Expected ratio was 1.12 (95%CI: 0.26–2.37; 95%PI: 0.02–6.54). Regarding clinical pregnancy with fetal heartbeat, the AUC of the SROC was 0.722, while the pAUC was 0.774. The O:E ratio was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.54–1.05; 95%PI: 0.21–1.62). According to this data synthesis, the majority of the AI-based prediction models are successful in accurately predicting the IVF outcome regarding live birth, clinical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy with fetal heartbeat, and ploidy status. This review attempted to compare between AI and human prediction capabilities, and although studies do not allow for a meta-analysis, this systematic review indicates that the AI-based prediction models perform rather similarly to the embryologists’ evaluations. While AI models appear marginally more effective, they still have some way to go before they can claim to significantly surpass the clinical embryologists’ predictive competence.

Keywords