Associations between the artificial intelligence scoring system and live birth outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated that iDAScore is more accurate in predicting pregnancy outcomes in cycles without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) compared to KIDScore and the Gardner criteria. However, the effectiveness of iDAScore in cycles with PGT-A has not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, this study aims to assess the association between artificial intelligence (AI)-based iDAScore (version 1.0) and pregnancy outcomes in single-embryo transfer (SET) cycles with PGT-A. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung Sun Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. Patients undergoing SET cycles (n = 482) following PGT-A at a single reproductive center between January 2017 and June 2021. The blastocyst morphology and morphokinetics of all embryos were evaluated using a time-lapse system. The blastocysts were ranked based on the scores generated by iDAScore, which were defined as AI scores, or by KIDScore D5 (version 3.2) following the manufacturer's protocols. A single blastocyst without aneuploidy was transferred after examining the embryonic ploidy status using a next-generation sequencing-based PGT-A platform. Logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equations was conducted to assess whether AI scores are associated with the probability of live birth (LB) while considering confounding factors. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis revealed that AI score was significantly associated with LB probability (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.037, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.632-2.542) when pulsatility index (PI) level and types of chromosomal abnormalities were controlled. Blastocysts were divided into quartiles in accordance with their AI score (group 1 3.0-7.8; group 2 7.9-8.6; group 3 8.7-8.9; and group 4 9.0-9.5). Group 1 had a lower LB rate (34.6% vs. 59.8-72.3%) and a higher rate of pregnancy loss (26% vs. 4.7-8.9%) compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis verified that the iDAScore had a significant but limited ability to predict LB (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.64); this ability was significantly weaker than that of the combination of iDAScore, type of chromosomal abnormalities, and PI level (AUC = 0.67). In the comparison of the LB groups with the non-LB groups, the AI scores were significantly lower in the non-LB groups, both for euploid (median 8.6 vs. 8.8) and mosaic (median 8.0 vs. 8.6) SETs. CONCLUSIONS: Although its predictive ability can be further enhanced, the AI score was significantly associated with LB probability in SET cycles. Euploid or mosaic blastocysts with low AI scores (≤ 7.8) were associated with a lower LB rate, indicating the potential of this annotation-free AI system as a decision-support tool for deselecting embryos with poor pregnancy outcomes following PGT-A.