[No improvement in live birth rate after luteal phase support by GnRH agonist]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of adding a GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) in luteal phase support (LPS) on live birth rates in IVF/ICSI in antagonist protocols.

METHODS

In total, 341 IVF/ICSI attempts are analyzed in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: A f: LPS with progesterone alone (179 attempts) between March 2019 and May 2020; B: LPS with progesterone and an injection of triptorelin (GnRH-a) 0.1mg 6 days after oocyte retrieval (162 attempts) between June 2020 and June 2021. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were miscarriage rate, pregnancy rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristic are identical between the two groups except the infertility duration (longer in the group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups in live birth rate (24.1% versus 21.2%), pregnancy rate (33.3% versus 28.1%), miscarriage rate (4.9% versus 3.4%) and no increase the SHSO rate. The multivariate regression analysis after adjustment for age, ovarian reserve and infertility duration did not reveal a significant difference in live birth rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the results showed no statistically significant association with the single injection of a GnRH-a in addition to progesterone on live birth rate in luteal phase support.

A hybrid artificial intelligence model leverages multi-centric clinical data to improve fetal heart rate pregnancy prediction across time-lapse systems

STUDY QUESTION

Can artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms developed to assist embryologists in evaluating embryo morphokinetics be enriched with multi-centric clinical data to better predict clinical pregnancy outcome?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Training algorithms on multi-centric clinical data significantly increased AUC compared to algorithms that only analyzed the time-lapse system (TLS) videos.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Several AI-based algorithms have been developed to predict pregnancy, most of them based only on analysis of the time-lapse recording of embryo development. It remains unclear, however, whether considering numerous clinical features can improve the predictive performances of time-lapse based embryo evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A dataset of 9986 embryos (95.60% known clinical pregnancy outcome, 32.47% frozen transfers) from 5226 patients from 14 European fertility centers (in two countries) recorded with three different TLS was used to train and validate the algorithms. A total of 31 clinical factors were collected. A separate test set (447 videos) was used to compare performances between embryologists and the algorithm.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Clinical pregnancy (defined as a pregnancy leading to a fetal heartbeat) outcome was first predicted using a 3D convolutional neural network that analyzed videos of the embryonic development up to 2 or 3 days of development (33% of the database) or up to 5 or 6 days of development (67% of the database). The output video score was then fed as input alongside clinical features to a gradient boosting algorithm that generated a second score corresponding to the hybrid model. AUC was computed across 7-fold of the validation dataset for both models. These predictions were compared to those of 13 senior embryologists made on the test dataset.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The average AUC of the hybrid model across all 7-fold was significantly higher than that of the video model (0.727 versus 0.684, respectively, P = 0.015; Wilcoxon test). A SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis of the hybrid model showed that the six first most important features to predict pregnancy were morphokinetics of the embryo (video score), oocyte age, total gonadotrophin dose intake, number of embryos generated, number of oocytes retrieved, and endometrium thickness. The hybrid model was shown to be superior to embryologists with respect to different metrics, including the balanced accuracy (P ≤ 0.003; Wilcoxon test). The likelihood of pregnancy was linearly linked to the hybrid score, with increasing odds ratio (maximum P-value = 0.001), demonstrating the ranking capacity of the model. Training individual hybrid models did not improve predictive performance. A clinic hold-out experiment was conducted and resulted in AUCs ranging between 0.63 and 0.73. Performance of the hybrid model did not vary between TLS or between subgroups of embryos transferred at different days of embryonic development. The hybrid model did fare better for patients older than 35 years (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney test), and for fresh transfers (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney test).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Participant centers were located in two countries, thus limiting the generalization of our conclusion to wider subpopulations of patients. Not all clinical features were available for all embryos, thus limiting the performances of the hybrid model in some instances.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our study suggests that considering clinical data improves pregnancy predictive performances and that there is no need to retrain algorithms at the clinic level unless they follow strikingly different practices. This study characterizes a versatile AI algorithm with similar performance on different time-lapse microscopes and on embryos transferred at different development stages. It can also help with patients of different ages and protocols used but with varying performances, presumably because the task of predicting fetal heartbeat becomes more or less hard depending on the clinical context. This AI model can be made widely available and can help embryologists in a wide range of clinical scenarios to standardize their practices.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funding for the study was provided by ImVitro with grant funding received in part from BPIFrance (Bourse French Tech Emergence (DOS0106572/00), Paris Innovation Amorçage (DOS0132841/00), and Aide au Développement DeepTech (DOS0152872/00)). A.B.-C. is a co-owner of, and holds stocks in, ImVitro SAS. A.B.-C. and F.D.M. hold a patent for 'Devices and processes for machine learning prediction of in vitro fertilization' (EP20305914.2). A.D., N.D., M.M.F., and F.D.M. are or have been employees of ImVitro and have been granted stock options. X.P.-V. has been paid as a consultant to ImVitro and has been granted stocks options of ImVitro. L.C.-D. and C.G.-S. have undertaken paid consultancy for ImVitro SAS. The remaining authors have no conflicts to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

O-124 A new artificial intelligence (AI) system in the block: impact of clinical data on embryo selection using four different time-lapse incubators

Study question

Can AI algorithms assist embryologists in evaluating embryos from any time-lapse system (TLS) along with clinical data to better predict pregnancy outcomes and reduce time-to-pregnancy?

Summary answer

Our algorithm (Embryoly) significantly increases accuracy in predicting clinical pregnancy by 26.9% amongst embryos deemed of fair and good quality when clinical data is included.

What is known already

Embryologists routinely use defined morpho-kinetic criteria to decide which embryo to transfer, and yet, many embryos deemed of good quality fail to lead to a pregnancy. Thus, AI algorithms to assist embryologists in objectively selecting the most promising embryos are in demand. To date, several reports indicate that AI algorithms are capable of predicting pregnancy clinical outcomes but to the best of our knowledge they only consider visual data (or together with a small set of clinical features) from individual TLI systems to generate their predictions. 

Study design, size, duration

A dataset of 6790 embryos (97.82% known clinical pregnancy outcome, 31.47% frozen transfers) from 2519 patients from 11 European fertility centers recorded with 4 different TLS (GERI-Merck, Embryoscope & EmbryoscopePlus-Vitrolife and MIRI-Esco) was used to train and validate Embryoly. Nine out of 93 clinical factors were identified as being the most predictive, including woman age, woman and man BMI and AMH levels. Performances were evaluated on a separate test dataset (393 videos).

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Clinical pregnancy outcome was predicted using a 3D convolutional neural network that analyzed up to 5 days of embryo development. The output score was further analyzed considering the clinical features to generate a second clinical score. Both predictions were compared to those of 10 senior embryologists made on the same test dataset (with and without clinical features). Embryo quality was assessed as: poor, fair, good. Unless specified otherwise, McNemar test was used for statistical tests.

Main results and the role of chance

Overall accuracy of embryologists in predicting clinical pregnancy  based on videos alone was 57.25% (CI 95% : 52.34% - 62.16%) compared to 60.56% (CI 95% : 55.71% - 65.41%) for Embryoly (p = 0.35).

When videos were analyzed together with the clinical factors, overall accuracy of embryologists was significantly lower than Embryoly (60.05% [CI 95% : 55.19% - 64.91%] vs 68.19% [CI 95% : 63.57% - 72.82%], p-value=0.015, respectively). Clinical factors significantly increased our accuracy by 7.63% (p-value=0.030). More specifically, Embryoly algorithms fared better in terms of detecting false positives (31.30% vs 19.34%) compared to embryologists, with a specificity of 74.4% vs. 58.6%, respectively.

If we consider only embryos of fair and good quality (71.50% of our test dataset) Embryoly’s accuracy was 13.52% higher than that of embryologists. This translates into AI having an even better ability to detect false positives for embryos that could be seen as good candidates for transfer (20.28% false positives against 42.70% for the embryologists). Embryoly performs differently across selected TLS when analyzing videos alone, but not when clinical data was also considered (chi2 test, p &lt; 0.001 and 0.5, respectively). Further work will investigate these discrepancies across TLS.

Limitations, reasons for caution

As of today, Embryoly’s accuracy in predicting the outcome of poor-quality embryos is not different to that of embryologists (79.46% vs 84.96%; p-value=0.19). We are improving this by exposing Embryoly to more “poor quality” embryos, so as to also identify poor quality embryos with unexpected potential for implantation.

Wider implications of the findings

Our pioneering findings support the use of AI for a standardized and couple-centered care in clinical embryology, integrating male and female factors with embryo development analyses from multiple TLS. Our approach has the potential to cost-effectively reduce time to pregnancy and is another step toward a personalized embryo transfer strategy.

Trial registration number

Not applicable