Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of Day 5 KIDScore™ morphokinetic prediction models of implantation and live birth after single blastocyst transfer

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

While several studies reported the association between morphokinetic parameters and implantation, few predictive models were developed to predict implantation after day 5 embryo transfer, generally without external validation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the respective performance of 2 commercially available morphokinetic-based models (KIDScore™ Day 5 versions 1 and 2) for the prediction of implantation and live birth after day 5 single blastocyst transfer.

Methods

This monocentric retrospective study was conducted on 210 ICSI cycles with single day 5 embryo transfer performed with a time-lapse imaging (TLI) system between 2013 and 2016. The association between both KIDScore™ and the observed implantation and live birth rates was calculated, as well as the agreement between embryologist’s choice for transfer and embryo ranking by the models.

Results

Implantation and live birth rate were both 35.7%. A significant positive correlation was found between both models and implantation rate (r = 0.96 and r = 0.90, p = 0.01) respectively. Both models had statistically significant but limited predictive power for implantation (AUC 0.60). There was a fair agreement between the embryologists’ choice and both models (78% and 61% respectively), with minor differences in case of discrepancies.

Conclusions

KIDScore™ Day 5 predictive models are significantly associated with implantation rates after day 5 single blastocyst transfer. However, their predictive performance remains perfectible. The use of these predictive models holds promises as decision-making tools to help the embryologist select the best embryo, ultimately facilitating the implementation of SET policy. However, embryologists’ expertise remains absolutely necessary to make the final decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1318–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive M, Embryology ESIGo. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gardner DK, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Treff NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21:727–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Paternot G, Wetzels AM, Thonon F, Vansteenbrugge A, Willemen D, Devroe J, et al. Intra- and interobserver analysis in the morphological assessment of early stage embryos during an ivf procedure: a multicentre study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Basile N, Caiazzo M, Meseguer M. What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Paulson RJ, Reichman DE, Zaninovic N, Goodman LR, Racowsky C. Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:584–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:511–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Response: time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:290–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for ART. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:288–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018b;5:CD011320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meseguer M, Herrero J, Tejera A, Hilligsoe KM, Ramsing NB, Remohi J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CF. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26:477–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Basile N, Nogales Mdel C, Bronet F, Florensa M, Riqueiros M, Rodrigo L, et al. Increasing the probability of selecting chromosomally normal embryos by time-lapse morphokinetics analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:699–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Milewski R, Kuc P, Kuczynska A, Stankiewicz B, Lukaszuk K, Kuczynski W. A predictive model for blastocyst formation based on morphokinetic parameters in time-lapse monitoring of embryo development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:571–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Motato Y, de los Santos MJ, Escriba MJ, Ruiz BA, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:376–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:656–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on day 3. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2231–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang L, Cai S, Zhang S, Kong X, Gu Y, Lu C, et al. Single embryo transfer by day 3 time-lapse selection versus day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:869–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the embryoscope. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1287–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, Witmer J, Palao LM, Gvakharia M. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:369–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:729–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kirkegaard K, Campbell A, Agerholm I, Bentin-Ley U, Gabrielsen A, Kirk J, et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:156–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Freour T, Le Fleuter N, Lammers J, Splingart C, Reignier A, Barriere P. External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. Fertil Steril. 2015b;103:917–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ciray HN, Aksoy T, Goktas C, Ozturk B, Bahceci M. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media--a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:891–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hardarson T, Bungum M, Conaghan J, Meintjes M, Chantilis SJ, Molnar L, et al. Noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial comparing embryo development using media developed for sequential or undisturbed culture in a time-lapse setup. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1452–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barrie A, Homburg R, McDowell G, Brown J, Kingsland C, Troup S. 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. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:613–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ciray HN, Campbell A, Agerholm IE, Aguilar J, Chamayou S, Esbert M, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:2650–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:722–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu Y, Feenan K, Chapple V, Matson P. Assessing efficacy of day 3 embryo time-lapse algorithms retrospectively: impacts of dataset type and confounding factors. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019;22:182–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Storr A, Venetis C, Cooke S, Kilani S, Ledger W. Time-lapse algorithms and morphological selection of day-5 embryos for transfer: a preclinical validation study. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:276–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Effect of oxygen concentration on human embryo development evaluated by time-lapse monitoring. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:738–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wale PL, Gardner DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:2–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu Y, Chapple V, Feenan K, Roberts P, Matson P. Time-lapse videography of human embryos: using pronuclear fading rather than insemination in ivf and icsi cycles removes inconsistencies in time to reach early cleavage milestones. Reprod Biol. 2015;15:122–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lammers J, Reignier A, Splingart C, Catteau A, David L, Barriere P, et al. Does sperm origin affect embryo morphokinetic parameters? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1325–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kirkegaard K, Sundvall L, Erlandsen M, Hindkjær JJ, Knudsen UB, Ingerslev HJ. Timing of human preimplantation embryonic development is confounded by embryo origin. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:324–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Blank C, Wildeboer RR, DeCroo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, de Sutter P, et al. Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: a machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:318–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tran D, Cooke S, Illingworth PJ, Gardner DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:1011–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de biologie et médecine de la reproduction, CHU Nantes, 38 boulevard Jean Monnet, 44093, Nantes, France

    Arnaud Reignier, Jenna Lammers, Sana Chtourou, Tiphaine Lefebvre, Paul Barriere & Thomas Freour

  2. Centre de Recherche en Transplantation et Immunologie UMR 1064, INSERM, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France

    Arnaud Reignier, Paul Barriere & Thomas Freour

  3. Faculté de médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France

    Arnaud Reignier, Tiphaine Lefebvre, Paul Barriere & Thomas Freour

  4. Centre d’AMP Procréalis, La Roche-sur-Yon, France

    Jean-Maxime Girard

  5. Laboratoire de biologie de la reproduction et de cytogénétique, Hôpital Aziza Othmana, Tunis, Tunisia

    Sana Chtourou

Authors
  1. Arnaud Reignier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Maxime Girard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jenna Lammers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sana Chtourou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tiphaine Lefebvre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Barriere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas Freour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Freour.

Ethics declarations

All patients gave their informed consent for the anonymous use of the database for research purpose. This protocol was approved by local ethics committee (GNEDS).

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reignier, A., Girard, JM., Lammers, J. et al. Performance of Day 5 KIDScore™ morphokinetic prediction models of implantation and live birth after single blastocyst transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 36, 2279–2285 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01567-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01567-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation