4.7 Article

Predicting Embryo Viability Based on Self-Supervised Alignment of Time-Lapse Videos

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 465-475

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2021.3116986

Keywords

Embryo; Videos; Pregnancy; Task analysis; Annotations; Supervised learning; Manuals; Clustering; embryo selection; in vitro fertilization; self-supervised learning; temporal cycle-consistency

Funding

  1. Innovation Fund Denmark (IFD) [7039-00068B]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces a method for analyzing time-lapse videos of developing embryos using self-supervised learning, and demonstrates its superiority in predicting pregnancy likelihood. Additionally, the paper explores how transfer learning and semi-supervised learning can improve model performance when labeled data is limited.
With self-supervised learning, both labeled and unlabeled data can be used for representation learning and model pretraining. This is particularly relevant when automating the selection of a patient's fertilized eggs (embryos) during a fertility treatment, in which only the embryos that were transferred to the female uterus may have labels of pregnancy. In this paper, we apply a self-supervised video alignment method known as temporal cycle-consistency (TCC) on 38176 time-lapse videos of developing embryos, of which 14550 were labeled. We show how TCC can be used to extract temporal similarities between embryo videos and use these for predicting pregnancy likelihood. Our temporal similarity method outperforms the time alignment measurement (TAM) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of 0.64 vs. 0.56. Compared to existing embryo evaluation models, it places in between a pure temporal and a spatio-temporal model that both require manual annotations. Furthermore, we use TCC for transfer learning in a semi-supervised fashion and show significant performance improvements compared to standard supervised learning, when only a small subset of the dataset is labeled. Specifically, two variants of transfer learning both achieve an AUC of 0.66 compared to 0.63 for supervised learning when 16% of the dataset is labeled.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available