Comparison of the efficiency of an AI-assisted model for morphokinetic and morphological human blastocyst selection with the pre-implantation genetic testing

Shurygina O.V.; Guseva O.S.; Petrova A.A.; Sustretov A.S.; Tugushev M.T.; Saraeva N.V.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20253106175

Shurygina O.V.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0002-1413-3328

Guseva O.S.

Samara State Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0003-0499-4631

Petrova A.A.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0001-5684-2109

Sustretov A.S.

Samara State Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0002-3021-2130

Tugushev M.T.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0002-3328-3217

Saraeva N.V.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0003-0222-1803

Comparison of the efficiency of an AI-assisted model for morphokinetic and morphological human blastocyst selection with the pre-implantation genetic testing

Authors:

Shurygina O.V., Guseva O.S., Petrova A.A., Sustretov A.S., Tugushev M.T., Saraeva N.V.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2025;31(6): 75‑84

DOI: 10.17116/repro20253106175

Read: 373 times

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Shurygina OV, Guseva OS, Petrova AA, Sustretov AS, Tugushev MT, Saraeva NV. Comparison of the efficiency of an AI-assisted model for morphokinetic and morphological human blastocyst selection with the pre-implantation genetic testing. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2025;31(6):75‑84. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20253106175

Подписка 2026 Проблемы репродукции (Russian Journal of Human Reproduction)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

INTRODUCTION

Chromosomal pathologies of the embryo are the most significant ones the experts in the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have been facing with. The existing methods for the embryo evaluation such as the assessment of morphology and NGS-based PGT-A have a number of limitations. An integration of the morphokinetic and genetic methods could increase the ART efficiency and reduce the risk of birth of newborns with the chromosomal abnormalities.

To study the correlation between the results of the embryo selection based on an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted KIDScore morphokinetic model, conventional blastocyst morphology assessment and embryo aneuploidy levels.

A post-hoc analysis of the morphological and morphokinetic assessment of the development and PGT-A results involved 258 5—6-day embryos from 107 patient pairs treated for the infertility using ART methods.

There were 135 (52.3%) euploid and 123 (47.7%) aneuploid embryos. The probability of aneuploidy identification was higher in elder women (p<0.01). KIDScore median was higher in the euploid vs. aneuploid group (6.60 vs. 5.90, p<0.01). ROC curve for the PGT-A result relied on the KIDScore showed that the model can be used for the euploidy prediction (p<0.001). The selection of an embryo with KIDScore below 7.1 for PGT-A is highly predictive of aneuploidy. Logistic 3D model showed the age and KIDscore as significant predictors for the PGT-A result. The analysis of the dependency of blastocyst morphology on the PGT-A result revealed 1.985-fold lower chances to find a good (BB, AC, CA) blastocyst in the euploid group (p<0.05). 51.2% aneuploid embryos had low expansion of 3 vs. euploid ones (34.1%). In contrast, euploid embryos reached the expansion of 5 or 6 more frequently (17% and 14.1%) vs. aneuploid ones (7.3% and 8.1%, p<0.05). Excellent (AA, AB, BA) blastocysts had higher KIDScores in all age groups vs. good (BB, AC, CA) blastocysts, with an average value of 6.60 vs. 5.40 (p<0.001). The highest KIDScore median (8.0540) was in the embryos which had the expansion of 5 (p<0.001).

The integration of the morphological/morphokinetic analysis with the AI-assisted PGT-A technology can improve the pregnancy outcomes and increase healthy birth numbers.

Keywords:

preimplantation diagnosis

genetic testing

aneuploidy

chromosome disorders

time-lapse imaging

embryonic development

blastocyst

biopsy

Authors:

Shurygina O.V.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0002-1413-3328

Guseva O.S.

Samara State Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0003-0499-4631

Petrova A.A.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0001-5684-2109

Sustretov A.S.

Samara State Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0002-3021-2130

Tugushev M.T.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0002-3328-3217

Saraeva N.V.

Samara State Medical University;
Medical Centre Mother and Child

ORCID: 0000-0003-0222-1803

Received:

04.03.2025

Accepted:

11.04.2025

Close metadata

References:

Chavli EA, Klaasen SJ, Van Opstal D, Laven JS, Kops GJ, Baart EB. Single-cell DNA sequencing reveals a high incidence of chromosomal abnormalities in human blastocysts. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2024;134(6):e174483. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI174483
Sahin GN, Yildirim RM, Seli E. Embryonic arrest: causes and implications. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023;35(3): 184-192. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000871
Mantikou E, Wong KM, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Molecular origin of mitotic aneuploidies in preimplantation embryos. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) — Molecular Basis of Disease. 2012; 1822(12):1921-1930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2012.06.013
Viotti M. Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Chromosomal Abnormalities: Aneuploidy, Mosaicism, and Structural Rearrangements. Genes. 2020;11(6):602. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11060602
Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT Jr. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;101(3):656-663.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004
Tiegs AW, Tao X, Zhan Y, Whitehead C, Kim J, Hanson B, Osman E, Kim T J, Patounakis G, Gutmann J, Castelbaum A, Seli E, Jalas C., Scott RT Jr. A multicenter, prospective, blinded, nonselection study evaluating the predictive value of an aneuploid diagnosis using a targeted next-generation sequencing–based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy assay and impact of biopsy. Fertility and Sterility. 2021;115(3):627-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.052
Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB. In-vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Towards Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond. Carnforth: Parthenon Press; 1999: 378-388.
Ciray H.N, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, Sayed S. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Human Reproduction. 2014;29(12):2650-2660. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu278
Bori L, Meseguer F, Valera MA, Galan A, Remohi J, Meseguer M. The higher the score, the better the clinical outcome: retrospective evaluation of automatic embryo grading as a support tool for embryo selection in IVF laboratories. Human Reproduction. 2022; 37(6):1148-1160. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac066
Gazzo E, Peña F, Valdéz F, Chung A, Bonomini C, Ascenzo M, Velit M, Escudero E. The Kidscore(TM) D5 algorithm as an additional tool to morphological assessment and PGT-A in embryo selection: a time-lapse study. JBRA Assisted Reproduction. 2020; 24(1):55-60. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20190054
Reignier A, Girard JM, Lammers J, Chtourou S, Lefebvre T, Barriere P, Freour T. Performance of Day 5 KIDScoreTM morphokinetic prediction models of implantation and live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2019; 36(11):2279-2285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01567-x
Tartia AP, Wu CQ, Gale J, Shmorgun D, Léveillé MC. Time-lapse KIDScoreD5 for prediction of embryo pregnancy potential in fresh and vitrified-warmed single-embryo transfers. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2022;45(1):46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.019
Ueno S, Berntsen J, Ito M, Uchiyama K, Okimura T, Yabuuchi A, Kato K. Pregnancy prediction performance of an annotation-free embryo scoring system on the basis of deep learning after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer: a single-center large cohort retrospective study. Fertility and Sterility.2021;116(4):1172-1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.06.001
Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertility and Sterility. 2017;108(5):722-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.002
Cinnioglu C, Kayali R, Darvin T, Akinwole A, Jakubowska M, Harton G. Aneuploidy Screening using Next Generation Sequencing. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2019;1885:85-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8889-1_6
Dang TT, Phung TM, Le H, Nguyen TBV, Nguyen TS, Nguyen TLH, Nga VT, Chu DT, Hoang VL, Nguyen DB. Preimplantation Genetic Testing of Aneuploidy by Next Generation Sequencing: Association of Maternal Age and Chromosomal Abnormalities of Blastocyst. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2019;7(24):4427-4431. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.875
Casper RF. PGT-A: Houston, we have a problem. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2023;40(10):2325-2332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02913-w
Gleicher N, Orvieto R. Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review. Journal of Ovarian Research. 2017;10(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-017-0318-3
Smirnova AA, Zyriaeva NA, Zhordanidze DO, Sergeev SA, Matveeva EO, Rizhinashvili SI, Torchinov AR, Anshina MB, Kira EF. Preimplantation genetic testing for early pregnancy loss prevention in ivf patients. Reproduktivnaya medicina (Central`naya Aziya). 2019;3(40):65-71. (In Russ.).
Shurygina OV, Yuldasheva SZ, Tugushev MT, Minaeva TV, Petrova AA, Belyaeva LA, Mironov SYu, Shurygin SA, Krutikhin DYu. Evaluation of the Efficiency of Preimplantation Genetic Testing in ART Programs: A Retrospective Study. Reproduktivnaya medicina (Central`naya Aziya). 2022;4(53):32-39. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37800/RM.3.2022.32-39
Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, Vogel NEA, Arts EGJM, de Vries JWA, Bossuyt PM, Buys CHCM, Heineman MJ, Repping S, van der Veen F. In Vitro Fertilization with Preimplantation Genetic Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;357(1):9-17. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067744
Tomic M, Vrtacnik Bokal E, Stimpfel M. Non-Invasive Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy and the Mystery of Genetic Material: A Review Article. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022;23(7):3568. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23073568
Berntsen J, Rimestad J, Lassen JT, Tran D, Kragh MF. Robust and generalizable embryo selection based on artificial intelligence and time-lapse image sequences. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0262661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262661
De Martin H, Bonetti TCS, Nissel CAZ, Gomes AP, Fujii MG, Monteleone PAA. Association of early cleavage, morula compaction and blastocysts ploidy of IVF embryos cultured in a time-lapse system and biopsied for genetic test for aneuploidy. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):739. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-51087-z