Scientific Reports · 2020 · 81 citations · 20 references
ComputingComputer ScienceObstetricsComputer VisionEmbryo TransferMachine LearningDecision TreesEnsemble MethodsMedical Image AnalysisPattern RecognitionPregnancy DiagnosisSupport Vector MachinesBayesian ClassifiersCross-validationEmbryo Viability PredictionImage Feature ExtractionMorphometric CharactersMorphometric ClassificationProbabilistic Support Vector MachinesRandom Forest Classification
Assessing the viability of a blastosyst is still empirical and non-reproducible nowadays. We developed an algorithm based on artificial vision and machine learning (and other classifiers) that predicts pregnancy using the beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-hCG) test from both the morphology of an embryo and the age of the patients. We employed two high-quality databases with known pregnancy outcomes (n = 221). We created a system consisting of different classifiers that is feed with novel morphometric features extracted from the digital micrographs, along with other non-morphometric data to predict pregnancy. It was evaluated using five different classifiers: probabilistic bayesian, Support Vector Machines (SVM), deep neural network, decision tree, and Random Forest (RF), using a k-fold cross validation to assess the model's generalization capabilities. In the database A, the SVM classifier achieved an F1 score of 0.74, and AUC of 0.77. In the database B the RF classifier obtained a F1 score of 0.71, and AUC of 0.75. Our results suggest that the system is able to predict a positive pregnancy test from a single digital image, offering a novel approach with the advantages of using a small database, being highly adaptable to different laboratory settings, and easy integration into clinical practice.
20
Machine learning algorithm validation with a limited sample size
Andrius Vabalas, Emma Gowen, Ellen Poliakoff et al. · PLoS ONE · 2019 · 1.7K citations · Full text
Deep learning for image-based cancer detection and diagnosis − A survey
Zilong Hu, Jinshan Tang, Ziming Wang et al. · Pattern Recognition · 2018 · 506 citations