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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Fertility and sterility 2017-03, Vol.107 (3), p.613-621
Hauptverfasser: 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
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