Journal of imaging · 2025
Combined Input Deep Learning Pipeline for Embryo Selection for In Vitro Fertilization Using Light Microscopic Images and Additional Features.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Onthuam Krittapat, Charnpinyo Norrawee, Suthicharoenpanich Kornrapee, Engphaiboon Supphaset, Siricharoen Punnarai, Chaichaowarat Ronnapee, Suebthawinkul Chanakarn
Аннотация
The current process of embryo selection in in vitro fertilization is based on morphological criteria; embryos are manually evaluated by embryologists under subjective assessment. In this study, a deep learning-based pipeline was developed to classify the viability of embryos using combined inputs, including microscopic images of embryos and additional features, such as patient age and developed pseudo-features, including a continuous interpretation of Istanbul grading scores by predicting the embryo stage, inner cell mass, and trophectoderm. For viability prediction, convolution-based transferred learning models were employed, multiple pretrained models were compared, and image preprocessing techniques and hyperparameter optimization via Optuna were utilized. In addition, a custom weight was trained using a self-supervised learning framework known as the Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations (SimCLR) in cooperation with generated images using generative adversarial networks (GANs). The best model was developed from the EfficientNet-B0 model using preprocessed images combined with pseudo-features generated using separate EfficientNet-B0 models, and optimized by Optuna to tune the hyperparameters of the models. The designed model's F1 score, accuracy, sensitivity, and area under curve (AUC) were 65.02%, 69.04%, 56.76%, and 66.98%, respectively. This study also showed an advantage in accuracy and a similar AUC when compared with the recent ensemble method.