Bayesian classification for the selection of in vitro human embryos using morphological and clinical data

Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 104-116

  Morales, Dinora Araceli ^a   Bengoetxea, Endika ^a   Larrañaga, Pedro ^a,d   García, Miguel ^b   Franco, Yosu ^b   Fresnada, Mónica ^a   Merino, Marisa ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^b Clínica del Pilar   (Spain)

^c HOSPITAL DONOSTIA   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Bayesian classifiers; Decision support systems; Feature subset selection; IVF outcome prediction

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; PATIENT MONITORING; SUPERVISED LEARNING; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

BAYESIAN CLASSIFIERS; FEATURE SUBSET SELECTION; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION (IVF); OUTCOME PREDICTION;

HOSPITAL DATA PROCESSING;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; LAW; MCNEMAR TEST; NIDATION; PREDICTION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BAYES THEOREM; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; MALE; PREGNANCY; ZYGOTE;

EID: 40849120809     PISSN: 01692607     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2007.11.018     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Baczkowski T., Kurzawa R., and Glabowski W. Methods of embryo scoring in in vitro fertilization. Reprod. Biol. 4 (2004) 5-22
2. Saith R., Srinivasan A., Michie D., and Sargent I. Relationships between the developmental potential of human in-vitro fertilization embryos and features describing the embryo, oocyte and follicle. Human Reprod. Update 4 (1998) 121-134
3. Jurisica I., Mylopoulos J., Glasgow J., Shapiro H., and Casper R. Case-based reasoning in IVF: prediction and knowledge mining. Artif. Intel. Med. 12 (1998) 1-24
4. Trimarchi J.R., Goodside J., Passmore L., Silberstein T., Hamel L., and Gonzalez L. Comparing data mining and logistic regression for predicting IVF outcome. Fertil. Steril. 80 (2003) 100-100
5. Patrizi G., Manna C., Moscatelli C., and Nieddu L. Pattern recognition methods in human-assisted reproduction. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 11 (2004) 365-379
6. Manna C., Patrizi G., Rahman A., and Sallam H. Experimental results on the recognition of embryos in human assisted reproduction. Reprod. BioMed. Online 8 (2004) 460-469
7. Scott L., Alvero R., and Leondires M. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum. Reprod. 15 (2000) 2394-2403
8. Tesarik J., and Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum. Reprod. 14 (1999) 1318-1323
9. Fisch J.D., Rodriguez H., Ross R., Overby G., and Sher G. The graduated embryo score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum. Reprod. 16 (2001) 1970-1975
10. Terriou P., Sapin C., Giorgetti C., Hans E., Spach J.L., and Roulier R. Embryo score is a better predictor of pregnancy than the number of transferred embryos or female age. Fertil. Steril. 75 (2001) 525-531
11. Zollner U., Zollner K.P., Hartl G., Dietl J., and Steck T. The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience. Hum. Reprod. 17 (2002) 1327-1333
12. L.L. Veek, An Atlas of Human Gametes and Conceptuses: An Illustrated Reference for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Parthenon, 1999.
13. Matorras R., Matorras F., Mendoza R., Rodríguez M., Remohí J., Rodríguez-Escudero F.J., and Simón C. The implantation of every embryo facilitates the chances of the remaining embryos to implant in an IVF programme: a mathematical model to predict pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates. Hum. Reprod. 20 (2005) 2923-2931
14. Duda R., and Hart P. Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis (1973), John Wiley and Sons, New York
15. Blanco R., Inza I., Merino M., Quiroga J., and Larrañaga P. Feature selection in Bayesian classifiers for the prognosis of survival of cirrhotic patients treated with TIPS. Biomed. Inform. 38 (2005) 376-388
16. Pearl J. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligence Systems (1988), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA
17. Minsky M. Steps toward artificial intelligence. Trans. Inst. Radio Eng. 49 (1961) 8-30
18. P. Langley, S. Sage. Induction of selective Bayesian classifiers, in: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, 1994, pp. 399-406.
19. Pazzani M. Searching for dependencies in Bayesian classifiers. In: Fisher D., and Lenz H.-J. (Eds). Learning from Data: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics V (1997), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY 239-248
20. Friedman N., Geiger D., and Goldsmidt M. Bayesian network classifiers. Machine Learn. 29 (1997) 131-163
21. M. Sahami, Learning limited dependence Bayesian classifiers, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1996, pp. 335-338.
22. Ohmann C., Yang Q., Kunneke M., Stolzing H., Thon K., and Lorenz W. Bayes theorem and conditional dependence of symptoms: different models applied to data of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Meth. Inform. Med. 27 (1988) 73-83
23. Kononenko I. Comparison of inductive and naïve Bayesian learning approaches to automatic knowledge acquisition. In: Wielinga B., Boose J., Gaines B., Shereiber G., and van Someren M. (Eds). Current Trends in Knowledge Acquisition (1990), IOS Press, Amsterdam 190-197
24. Cestnik B., Kononenko I., and Bratko I. ASSISTANT-86: a knowledge elicitation tool for sophisticated users. In: Bratko I., and Lavrac N. (Eds). Progress in Machine Learning (1987), Sigma Press, Wilmslow, U.K. 31-45
25. Liu H., and Motoda H. Feature Selection for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (1998), Kluwer Academic Publishers
26. Inza I., Larrañaga P., Etxeberria R., and Sierra B. Feature subset selection by Bayesian network-based optimization. Artif. Intel. 123 (2000) 157-184
27. Kohavi R., and John G. Wrappers for feature subset selection. Artif. Intel. 97 (1997) 273-324
28. Stone M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 36 (1974) 111-147
29. I. Kononenko, Semi-naïve Bayesian classifiers, in: Proceedings of the 6th European Working Session on Learning, 1991, pp. 206-219.
30. Chow C., and Liu C. Approximating discrete probability distributions with dependence trees. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 14 (1968) 462-467
31. Lewis D. Naive (Bayes) at forty: the independence assumption in information retrieval. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Machine Learning (1998)
32. Blum A.L., and Langley P. Selection of relevant features and examples in machine learning. Artif. Intel. 97 (1997) 245-271
33. Zaffalon M. The naive credal classifier. J. Stat. Plan. Inf. 105 (2002) 5-21
34. Duda R., Hart P., and Stork D.G. Pattern Classification (2001), Wiley Interscience
35. McKay D. Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (2003), Cambridge University Press
36. Cover T.M., and Thomas J.A. Elements of Information Theory (1991), John Wiley and Sons
37. Dougherty K., Kohavi R., and Sahami M. Supervised and unsupervised discretization of continuous features. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning (1995) 194-202
38. Elvira Consortium. Elvira: an environment for creating and using probabilistic graphical models, in: Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Probabilistic Graphical Models, Cuenca (Spain), 2002, pp. 222-230.
39. Ziebe S., Petersen K., Lindenberg S., Andersen A.G., Gabrielsen A., and Andersen A.N. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 12 (1997) 1545-1549
40. Alikanin M., Cohen J., Tomkin G., Garrisi J., Mack C., and Scott R.T. Human embryo fragmentation in vitro and its implications for pregnancy and implantation. Fertil. Steril. 71 (1999) 836-842
41. Gabrielsen A., Lindenberg S., and Petersen K. The impact of the zona pellucida thickness variation of human embryos on pregnancy outcome in relation to suboptimal embryo development. A prospective randomized controlled study. Hum. Reprod. 16 (2001) 2166-2170
42. Dietterich T.G. Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Comput. 10 (1998) 1895-1924
43. Sakkas D., Percival G., DÁrcy Y., Sharif K., and Afnan M. Assessment of early cleaving in vitro fertilized human embryos at the 2-cell stage before transfer improves embryo selection. Fertil. Steril. 76 (2001) 1150-1156
44. Shen S., Wong C., Ho K., Telles T.L., Fujimoto V.Y., and Cedars M.I. The morphology of 2 pronuclear (2PN) embryos is related to the quality of day 3 embryos. Fertil. Steril. 78 (2002) S52-S53