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
Objective To study the efficacy of six embryo-selection algorithms (ESAs) when applied to a large, exclusive set of known implantation embryos. Design Retrospective, observational analysis. Setting Fertility treatment center. Patient(s) Women undergoing a total of 884 in vitro fertilization (IVF) or...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Fertility and sterility 2017-03, Vol.107 (3), p.613-621 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 621 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 613 |
container_title | Fertility and sterility |
container_volume | 107 |
creator | Barrie, Amy, M.Sc Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S McDowell, Garry, Ph.D Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D Kingsland, Charles, M.D Troup, Stephen, Ph.D |
description | Objective To study the efficacy of six embryo-selection algorithms (ESAs) when applied to a large, exclusive set of known implantation embryos. Design Retrospective, observational analysis. Setting Fertility treatment center. Patient(s) Women undergoing a total of 884 in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles (977 embryos) between September 2014 and September 2015 with embryos cultured using G-TL (Vitrolife) at 5% O2 , 89% N2 , 6% CO2 , at 37°C in EmbryoScope instruments. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Efficacy of each ESA to predict implantation defined using specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and likelihood ratio (LR), with differences in implantation rates (IR) in the categories outlined by each ESA statistically analyzed (Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests). Result(s) When applied to an exclusive cohort of known implantation embryos, the PPVs of each ESA were 42.57%, 41.52%, 44.28%, 38.91%, 38.29%, and 40.45%. The NPVs were 62.12%, 68.26%, 71.35%, 76.19%, 61.10%, and 64.14%. The sensitivity was 16.70%, 75.33%, 72.94%, 98.67%, 51.19%, and 62.33% and the specificity was 85.83%, 33.33%, 42.33%, 2.67%, 48.17%, and 42.33%, The AUC were 0.584, 0.558, 0.573, 0.612, 0.543, and 0.629. Two of the ESAs resulted in statistically significant differences in the embryo classifications in terms of IR. Conclusion(s) These results highlight the need for the development of in-house ESAs that are specific to the patient, treatment, and environment. These data suggest that currently available ESAs may not be clinically applicable and lose their diagnostic value when externally applied. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.014 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1857372857</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0015028216630145</els_id><sourcerecordid>1857372857</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-cd73f26a252c1eef0fd07d525b97257d3d88986a7ca0db01d5e8e26a347416c63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUsGO0zAQtRCILYVfQD5yIMF2aie9IMFqF5BW4gCcLdeetO4mdrDd1fY7-SEm7QIS4sBlLI_ezHszbwihnNWccfVmX_eQSsgFYy0wU3NeM756RBZcSlVJJZvHZMEYlxUTnbggz3LeM8YUb8VTciE6pta8Uwvy4-rejD74sKVlBxT63ltjjzT2NPt7Oh02g887cLT4EarBTBmoH812LoBxk46RZhjAFh8DNcM2Jl92Y6Yl0imB87YgfBpMKOYEwbyDMaL0ZAqcOANg-z6m08fBHQxxGiGUk4YJrEdJr6kP1S4ekH2MadrFWx-gePtP8ufkSW-GDC8e3iX5dn319fJjdfP5w6fLdzeVXbXrUlnXNr1QRkhhOUDPesdaJ4XcrFshW9e4rlt3yrTWMLdh3EnoAPHNql1xZVWzJK_OfacUvx8gFz36bGHAaQGlat7JtmnFHJekO0Ntijkn6PWUcI3pqDnTs6V6r_9YqmdLNecaLcXSlw8sh80I7nfhLw8R8P4MAJz1zkPS2XoIFrefcDfaRf8_LG__amIHPAtrhls4Qt7HQwq4S811FprpL_NpzZfFlWqwXjY_Ad8T0-M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1857372857</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>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</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Barrie, Amy, M.Sc ; Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S ; McDowell, Garry, Ph.D ; Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D ; Kingsland, Charles, M.D ; Troup, Stephen, Ph.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Barrie, Amy, M.Sc ; Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S ; McDowell, Garry, Ph.D ; Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D ; Kingsland, Charles, M.D ; Troup, Stephen, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To study the efficacy of six embryo-selection algorithms (ESAs) when applied to a large, exclusive set of known implantation embryos. Design Retrospective, observational analysis. Setting Fertility treatment center. Patient(s) Women undergoing a total of 884 in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles (977 embryos) between September 2014 and September 2015 with embryos cultured using G-TL (Vitrolife) at 5% O2 , 89% N2 , 6% CO2 , at 37°C in EmbryoScope instruments. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Efficacy of each ESA to predict implantation defined using specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and likelihood ratio (LR), with differences in implantation rates (IR) in the categories outlined by each ESA statistically analyzed (Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests). Result(s) When applied to an exclusive cohort of known implantation embryos, the PPVs of each ESA were 42.57%, 41.52%, 44.28%, 38.91%, 38.29%, and 40.45%. The NPVs were 62.12%, 68.26%, 71.35%, 76.19%, 61.10%, and 64.14%. The sensitivity was 16.70%, 75.33%, 72.94%, 98.67%, 51.19%, and 62.33% and the specificity was 85.83%, 33.33%, 42.33%, 2.67%, 48.17%, and 42.33%, The AUC were 0.584, 0.558, 0.573, 0.612, 0.543, and 0.629. Two of the ESAs resulted in statistically significant differences in the embryo classifications in terms of IR. Conclusion(s) These results highlight the need for the development of in-house ESAs that are specific to the patient, treatment, and environment. These data suggest that currently available ESAs may not be clinically applicable and lose their diagnostic value when externally applied.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-0282</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-5653</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28069186</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Blastocyst - physiology ; Embryo Culture Techniques ; Embryo development ; Embryo Implantation ; embryo selection algorithm ; Embryo Transfer ; Embryonic Development ; England ; Female ; Fertility ; Fertilization in Vitro ; Humans ; Infertility - diagnosis ; Infertility - physiopathology ; Infertility - therapy ; Internal Medicine ; Kinetics ; Microscopy, Video ; morphokinetics ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Rate ; Retrospective Studies ; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic ; Time-Lapse Imaging - methods ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Fertility and sterility, 2017-03, Vol.107 (3), p.613-621</ispartof><rights>American Society for Reproductive Medicine</rights><rights>2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-cd73f26a252c1eef0fd07d525b97257d3d88986a7ca0db01d5e8e26a347416c63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-cd73f26a252c1eef0fd07d525b97257d3d88986a7ca0db01d5e8e26a347416c63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0653-4615</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.014$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28069186$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barrie, Amy, M.Sc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDowell, Garry, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kingsland, Charles, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Troup, Stephen, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><title>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</title><title>Fertility and sterility</title><addtitle>Fertil Steril</addtitle><description>Objective To study the efficacy of six embryo-selection algorithms (ESAs) when applied to a large, exclusive set of known implantation embryos. Design Retrospective, observational analysis. Setting Fertility treatment center. Patient(s) Women undergoing a total of 884 in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles (977 embryos) between September 2014 and September 2015 with embryos cultured using G-TL (Vitrolife) at 5% O2 , 89% N2 , 6% CO2 , at 37°C in EmbryoScope instruments. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Efficacy of each ESA to predict implantation defined using specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and likelihood ratio (LR), with differences in implantation rates (IR) in the categories outlined by each ESA statistically analyzed (Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests). Result(s) When applied to an exclusive cohort of known implantation embryos, the PPVs of each ESA were 42.57%, 41.52%, 44.28%, 38.91%, 38.29%, and 40.45%. The NPVs were 62.12%, 68.26%, 71.35%, 76.19%, 61.10%, and 64.14%. The sensitivity was 16.70%, 75.33%, 72.94%, 98.67%, 51.19%, and 62.33% and the specificity was 85.83%, 33.33%, 42.33%, 2.67%, 48.17%, and 42.33%, The AUC were 0.584, 0.558, 0.573, 0.612, 0.543, and 0.629. Two of the ESAs resulted in statistically significant differences in the embryo classifications in terms of IR. Conclusion(s) These results highlight the need for the development of in-house ESAs that are specific to the patient, treatment, and environment. These data suggest that currently available ESAs may not be clinically applicable and lose their diagnostic value when externally applied.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Blastocyst - physiology</subject><subject>Embryo Culture Techniques</subject><subject>Embryo development</subject><subject>Embryo Implantation</subject><subject>embryo selection algorithm</subject><subject>Embryo Transfer</subject><subject>Embryonic Development</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fertility</subject><subject>Fertilization in Vitro</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infertility - diagnosis</subject><subject>Infertility - physiopathology</subject><subject>Infertility - therapy</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Kinetics</subject><subject>Microscopy, Video</subject><subject>morphokinetics</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Rate</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic</subject><subject>Time-Lapse Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0015-0282</issn><issn>1556-5653</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUsGO0zAQtRCILYVfQD5yIMF2aie9IMFqF5BW4gCcLdeetO4mdrDd1fY7-SEm7QIS4sBlLI_ezHszbwihnNWccfVmX_eQSsgFYy0wU3NeM756RBZcSlVJJZvHZMEYlxUTnbggz3LeM8YUb8VTciE6pta8Uwvy4-rejD74sKVlBxT63ltjjzT2NPt7Oh02g887cLT4EarBTBmoH812LoBxk46RZhjAFh8DNcM2Jl92Y6Yl0imB87YgfBpMKOYEwbyDMaL0ZAqcOANg-z6m08fBHQxxGiGUk4YJrEdJr6kP1S4ekH2MadrFWx-gePtP8ufkSW-GDC8e3iX5dn319fJjdfP5w6fLdzeVXbXrUlnXNr1QRkhhOUDPesdaJ4XcrFshW9e4rlt3yrTWMLdh3EnoAPHNql1xZVWzJK_OfacUvx8gFz36bGHAaQGlat7JtmnFHJekO0Ntijkn6PWUcI3pqDnTs6V6r_9YqmdLNecaLcXSlw8sh80I7nfhLw8R8P4MAJz1zkPS2XoIFrefcDfaRf8_LG__amIHPAtrhls4Qt7HQwq4S811FprpL_NpzZfFlWqwXjY_Ad8T0-M</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Barrie, Amy, M.Sc</creator><creator>Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S</creator><creator>McDowell, Garry, Ph.D</creator><creator>Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D</creator><creator>Kingsland, Charles, M.D</creator><creator>Troup, Stephen, Ph.D</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0653-4615</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>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</title><author>Barrie, Amy, M.Sc ; Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S ; McDowell, Garry, Ph.D ; Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D ; Kingsland, Charles, M.D ; Troup, Stephen, Ph.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c479t-cd73f26a252c1eef0fd07d525b97257d3d88986a7ca0db01d5e8e26a347416c63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Blastocyst - physiology</topic><topic>Embryo Culture Techniques</topic><topic>Embryo development</topic><topic>Embryo Implantation</topic><topic>embryo selection algorithm</topic><topic>Embryo Transfer</topic><topic>Embryonic Development</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fertility</topic><topic>Fertilization in Vitro</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infertility - diagnosis</topic><topic>Infertility - physiopathology</topic><topic>Infertility - therapy</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Kinetics</topic><topic>Microscopy, Video</topic><topic>morphokinetics</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Rate</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic</topic><topic>Time-Lapse Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barrie, Amy, M.Sc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDowell, Garry, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kingsland, Charles, M.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Troup, Stephen, Ph.D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Fertility and sterility</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barrie, Amy, M.Sc</au><au>Homburg, Roy, M.B.B.S</au><au>McDowell, Garry, Ph.D</au><au>Brown, Jeremy, Ph.D</au><au>Kingsland, Charles, M.D</au><au>Troup, Stephen, Ph.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>Fertility and sterility</jtitle><addtitle>Fertil Steril</addtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>107</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>613</spage><epage>621</epage><pages>613-621</pages><issn>0015-0282</issn><eissn>1556-5653</eissn><abstract>Objective To study the efficacy of six embryo-selection algorithms (ESAs) when applied to a large, exclusive set of known implantation embryos. Design Retrospective, observational analysis. Setting Fertility treatment center. Patient(s) Women undergoing a total of 884 in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles (977 embryos) between September 2014 and September 2015 with embryos cultured using G-TL (Vitrolife) at 5% O2 , 89% N2 , 6% CO2 , at 37°C in EmbryoScope instruments. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Efficacy of each ESA to predict implantation defined using specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and likelihood ratio (LR), with differences in implantation rates (IR) in the categories outlined by each ESA statistically analyzed (Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests). Result(s) When applied to an exclusive cohort of known implantation embryos, the PPVs of each ESA were 42.57%, 41.52%, 44.28%, 38.91%, 38.29%, and 40.45%. The NPVs were 62.12%, 68.26%, 71.35%, 76.19%, 61.10%, and 64.14%. The sensitivity was 16.70%, 75.33%, 72.94%, 98.67%, 51.19%, and 62.33% and the specificity was 85.83%, 33.33%, 42.33%, 2.67%, 48.17%, and 42.33%, The AUC were 0.584, 0.558, 0.573, 0.612, 0.543, and 0.629. Two of the ESAs resulted in statistically significant differences in the embryo classifications in terms of IR. Conclusion(s) These results highlight the need for the development of in-house ESAs that are specific to the patient, treatment, and environment. These data suggest that currently available ESAs may not be clinically applicable and lose their diagnostic value when externally applied.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28069186</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.014</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0653-4615</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0015-0282 |
ispartof | Fertility and sterility, 2017-03, Vol.107 (3), p.613-621 |
issn | 0015-0282 1556-5653 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1857372857 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Algorithms Blastocyst - physiology Embryo Culture Techniques Embryo development Embryo Implantation embryo selection algorithm Embryo Transfer Embryonic Development England Female Fertility Fertilization in Vitro Humans Infertility - diagnosis Infertility - physiopathology Infertility - therapy Internal Medicine Kinetics Microscopy, Video morphokinetics Obstetrics and Gynecology Predictive Value of Tests Pregnancy Pregnancy Rate Retrospective Studies Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic Time-Lapse Imaging - methods Treatment Outcome |
title | 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 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T20%3A59%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Examining%20the%20efficacy%20of%20six%20published%20time-lapse%20imaging%20embryo%20selection%20algorithms%20to%20predict%20implantation%20to%20demonstrate%20the%20need%20for%20the%20development%20of%20specific,%20in-house%20morphokinetic%20selection%20algorithms&rft.jtitle=Fertility%20and%20sterility&rft.au=Barrie,%20Amy,%20M.Sc&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=107&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=613&rft.epage=621&rft.pages=613-621&rft.issn=0015-0282&rft.eissn=1556-5653&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.014&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1857372857%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1857372857&rft_id=info:pmid/28069186&rft_els_id=S0015028216630145&rfr_iscdi=true |