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

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.