Cargando…

Do morphokinetic data sets inform pregnancy potential?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to create a model to predict the implantation of transferred embryos based on information contained in the morphokinetic parameters of time-lapse monitoring. METHODS: An analysis of time-lapse recordings of 410 embryos transferred in 343 cycles of in vitro fertiliz...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Milewski, Robert, Milewska, Anna Justyna, Kuczyńska, Agnieszka, Stankiewicz, Bożena, Kuczyński, Waldemar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26843394
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0649-9
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to create a model to predict the implantation of transferred embryos based on information contained in the morphokinetic parameters of time-lapse monitoring. METHODS: An analysis of time-lapse recordings of 410 embryos transferred in 343 cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment was performed. The study was conducted between June 2012 and November 2014. For each embryo, the following data were collected: the duration of time from the intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedure to further division for two, three, four, and five blastomeres, time intervals between successive divisions, and the level of fragmentation assessed in successive time-points. Principal component analysis (PCA) and logistic regression were used to create a predictive model. RESULTS: Based on the results of principal component analysis and logistic regression analysis, a predictive equation was constructed. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) in the size of the created parameter between the implanted group (the median value: Me = −5.18 and quartiles: Q(1) = −5.61; Q(3) = −4.79) and the non-implanted group (Me = −5.69, Q(1) = −6.34; Q(3) = −5.16) were found. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve constructed for the considered model showed the good quality of this predictive equation. The area under the ROC curve was AUC = 0.70 with a 95 % confidence interval (0.64, 0.75). The presented model has been validated on an independent data set, illustrating that the model is reliable and repeatable. CONCLUSIONS: Morphokinetic parameters contain information useful in the process of creating pregnancy prediction models. However, embryo quality is not the only factor responsible for implantation, and, thus, the power of prediction of the considered model is not as high as in models for blastocyst formation. Nevertheless, as illustrated by the results of this study, the application of advanced data-mining methods in reproductive medicine allows one to create more accurate and useful models.