Prognostic value of oocyte quality in assisted reproductive technology outcomes: a systematic review

Nicole M. Fischer M.P.H., Ha Vi Nguyen M.D., Bhuchitra Singh M.D., M.P.H., M.H.S., Valerie L. Baker M.D., James H. Segars M.D.
{"title":"Prognostic value of oocyte quality in assisted reproductive technology outcomes: a systematic review","authors":"Nicole M. Fischer M.P.H.,&nbsp;Ha Vi Nguyen M.D.,&nbsp;Bhuchitra Singh M.D., M.P.H., M.H.S.,&nbsp;Valerie L. Baker M.D.,&nbsp;James H. Segars M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To survey and assess modern methodologies used to test oocyte quality that have prognostic value in predicting assisted reproductive technology outcomes</p></div><div><h3>Evidence Review</h3><p><span>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews<span> and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we surveyed the English-language literature between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. Two reviewers screened for articles focusing on oocyte quality markers that predict assisted reproductive technology outcomes, including embryo quality as well as </span></span>fertilization<span><span>, implantation, pregnancy, continued pregnancy, and live birth rates. Articles that did not mention oocytes or those that focused on nonhuman subjects, oocyte aging, </span>oocyte maturation, embryo quality, interventions, or specific clinical diagnoses (endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome) were deemed outside the scope of this analysis and excluded.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-six relevant articles were identified, including 19 prospective and 7 retrospective studies (n = 2,210 patients). We identified 3 general approaches for oocyte quality assessment: morphological evaluation (11 articles), genomics and proteomics (13 articles), and artificial intelligence (2 articles). Morphological assessment did not show a consistent pattern of predictive value of predicting in vitro fertilization outcomes (7 articles in favor of its predictive value, 4 against). A considerable proportion of genomic and proteomic articles identified promising biomarkers that may predict pregnancy and live birth (12 in favor, 1 against). Machine learning is a rapidly growing frontier that minimizes subjectivity while potentially improving predictive ability (2 in favor).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Although there remains a lack of consensus on optimal methods to predict reproductive success, machine learning and genomics demonstrate promise in improving the understanding of oocyte quality assessment and prognostication.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73011,"journal":{"name":"F&S reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.03.001","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F&S reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571921000062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective

To survey and assess modern methodologies used to test oocyte quality that have prognostic value in predicting assisted reproductive technology outcomes

Evidence Review

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we surveyed the English-language literature between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. Two reviewers screened for articles focusing on oocyte quality markers that predict assisted reproductive technology outcomes, including embryo quality as well as fertilization, implantation, pregnancy, continued pregnancy, and live birth rates. Articles that did not mention oocytes or those that focused on nonhuman subjects, oocyte aging, oocyte maturation, embryo quality, interventions, or specific clinical diagnoses (endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome) were deemed outside the scope of this analysis and excluded.

Results

Twenty-six relevant articles were identified, including 19 prospective and 7 retrospective studies (n = 2,210 patients). We identified 3 general approaches for oocyte quality assessment: morphological evaluation (11 articles), genomics and proteomics (13 articles), and artificial intelligence (2 articles). Morphological assessment did not show a consistent pattern of predictive value of predicting in vitro fertilization outcomes (7 articles in favor of its predictive value, 4 against). A considerable proportion of genomic and proteomic articles identified promising biomarkers that may predict pregnancy and live birth (12 in favor, 1 against). Machine learning is a rapidly growing frontier that minimizes subjectivity while potentially improving predictive ability (2 in favor).

Conclusion

Although there remains a lack of consensus on optimal methods to predict reproductive success, machine learning and genomics demonstrate promise in improving the understanding of oocyte quality assessment and prognostication.

辅助生殖技术结果中卵母细胞质量的预后价值:系统综述
目的调查和评估用于检测卵母细胞质量的现代方法,这些方法在预测辅助生殖技术结果中具有预后价值。证据回顾根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,我们使用PubMed、Scopus和Embase数据库调查了2010年1月1日至2019年12月31日之间的英语文献。两位审稿人筛选了有关预测辅助生殖技术结果的卵母细胞质量标记的文章,包括胚胎质量、受精、着床、妊娠、继续妊娠和活产率。未提及卵母细胞或关注非人类受试者、卵母细胞老化、卵母细胞成熟、胚胎质量、干预或特定临床诊断(子宫内膜异位症和多囊卵巢综合征)的文章被认为不在本分析范围内,并被排除。结果共纳入相关文献26篇,其中前瞻性研究19篇,回顾性研究7篇(n = 2210例)。我们确定了3种评估卵母细胞质量的一般方法:形态学评估(11篇文章),基因组学和蛋白质组学(13篇文章)和人工智能(2篇文章)。形态学评估对预测体外受精结果的预测价值没有一致的模式(7篇文章赞成其预测价值,4篇反对)。相当比例的基因组学和蛋白质组学文章发现了有希望预测怀孕和活产的生物标志物(12人赞成,1人反对)。机器学习是一个快速发展的前沿领域,它可以最大限度地减少主观性,同时潜在地提高预测能力(2票赞成)。结论尽管预测生殖成功率的最佳方法仍缺乏共识,但机器学习和基因组学在提高对卵母细胞质量评估和预测的理解方面显示出希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
F&S reviews
F&S reviews Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Urology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
61 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信