AI-based live birth prediction in IVF cycles: a systematic review without meta-analysis of model performance and validation

Authors

Ravi Yadav, Debasrita Banerjee, James Raj K

Published in

Middle East Fertility Society Journal. Volume 31. May 19, 2026.

Abstract

Background
Artificial intelligence and machine learning have been identified as promising avenues for improving embryo selection and predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, there is much heterogeneity in terms of model architectures and validation methodologies used for these models, as well as their actual clinical utility in terms of the end outcome of achieving a live birth.

Objective
To evaluate the diagnostic performance and validation methodologies of artificial intelligence-based predictive models for the end outcome of achieving a live birth following in vitro fertilization cycles.

Methods
This systematic review without meta-analysis was carried out following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and the study was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD420261298569). An extensive literature search was carried out on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for original studies published between January 2010 and January 2026. Original studies on the development or validation of AI models for embryo evaluation or prediction of IVF outcomes, where live birth was the primary or secondary outcome, were considered for inclusion. The methodological study quality and risk of bias assessment were done using the QUADAS-2 tool, while the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the modified GRADE approach.

Results
A total of 23 primary clinical studies (20 retrospective cohort studies, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) were included. In total, model evaluation on the validation cohorts comprised around 45,000 embryos/cycles, while the training datasets exceeded 200,000 embryos/cycles. Diagnostic accuracy was highly variable depending on model architecture. Multimodal models combining embryo image data and patient-level clinical variables demonstrated the highest model performance. These models achieved up to 0.97 Area Under the Curve (AUC) values and accuracy ranging from 74% to 82%. In contrast, Time-Lapse models achieved 0.64 to 0.97 AUC values (64% to 78% accuracy), while models using clinical variables alone achieved 0.70 to 0.80 AUC values (76% to 78% accuracy), and models using static images demonstrated the lowest performance (62% to 69% accuracy). Center-based models always outperformed national registry-based models. It is also interesting to note that the single prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial evaluating an AI algorithm (iDAScore) against traditional morphology did not demonstrate noninferiority with clinical pregnancy rates of 46.5% vs. 48.2%, respectively.

Conclusions
In terms of the diagnostic potential of the AI-based predictive models for the prediction of live birth following IVF, these are highly effective when utilizing multimodal prediction approaches to assess embryonic competence and the systemic reproductive environment. The existing body of evidence is heavily based on retrospective cohorts and is subject to a number of limitations due to the presence of risks for selection bias and internal validation overfitting. As prospective RCT data have not been used to prove the independent clinical superiority or non-inferiority of AI-based prediction for IVF outcomes, currently, it should be used as a supplementary tool for embryologists only.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

References

Mina A, Younesi M, Doohandeh T, Darzi S, Ardehjani NA, Sheibani S, Hosseinirad H, Valizadeh R (2025) Predicting pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles: a systematic review and diagnostic meta- analysis of artificial intelligence in embryo assessment. Contracept reproductive Med 10(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-025-00400-4

Article Google Scholar 
Bereczki K, Bukva M, Vedelek V, Nádasdi B, Kozinszky Z, Sinka R, Bereczki C, Vágvölgyi A, Zádori J (2025) Machine Learning-Based Prediction of IVF Outcomes: The Central Role of Female Preprocedural Factors. Biomedicines 13(11):2768. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13112768

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Bendus AEB, Mayer JF, Shipley SK, Catherino WH (2006) Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril 86(6):1608–1615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.037

Article Google Scholar 
Storr A, Venetis CA, Cooke S, Kilani S, Ledger W (2017) Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists during selection of a single Day 5 embryo for transfer: a multicenter study. Hum Reprod (Oxford England) 32(2):307–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew330

Article Google Scholar 
Liao Q, Zhang Q, Feng X, Huang H, Xu H, Tian B, Liu J, Yu Q, Guo N, Liu Q, Huang B, Ma D, Ai J, Xu S, Li K (2021) Development of deep learning algorithms for predicting blastocyst formation and quality by time-lapse monitoring. Commun Biology 4(1) Article 415. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01937-1
Sawada Y, Sato T, Nagaya M, Saito C, Yoshihara H, Banno C, Matsumoto Y, Matsuda Y, Yoshikai K, Sawada T, Ukita N, Sugiura-Ogasawara M (2021) Evaluation of artificial intelligence using time-lapse images of IVF embryos to predict live birth. Reprod Biomed Online 43(5):843–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.05.002

Article PubMed Google Scholar 
Enatsu N, Miyatsuka I, An LM, Inubushi M, Enatsu K, Otsuki J, Iwasaki T, Kokeguchi S, Shiotani M (2022) A novel system based on artificial intelligence for predicting blastocyst viability and visualizing the explanation. Reproductive Med biology 21(1):e12443. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12443

Article CAS Google Scholar 
Khosravi P, Kazemi E, Zhan Q, Malmsten JE, Toschi M, Zisimopoulos P, Sigaras A, Lavery S, Cooper LAD, Hickman C, Meseguer M, Rosenwaks Z, Elemento O, Zaninovic N, Hajirasouliha I (2019) Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Digit Med 2:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0096-y

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Kragh MF, Karstoft H (2021) Embryo selection with artificial intelligence: How to evaluate and compare methods? J Assist Reprod Genet 38(7):1675–1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02254-6

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Collins GS et al (2024) TRIPOD + AI statement: updated guidance for reporting prediction models developed with regression and artificial intelligence methods. BMJ 385:e078378. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078378

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
He R, Li X, Pan B, Luo Y, Zhang X, Wang J et al (2024) Non-invasive prediction of human embryonic ploidy using artificial intelligence applied to time-lapse images. Reprod Biomed Online 48(2):215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.10.012

Article Google Scholar 
Dehghan S, Rabiei R, Choobineh H, Maghooli K, Nazari M, Vahidi-Asl M (2024) Comparative study of machine learning approaches integrated with genetic algorithm for IVF success prediction. PLoS ONE 19(10):e0310829. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310829

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Blank C, Wildeboer RR, De Croo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, De Sutter P, Schoot BC (2019) Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: A machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril 111(2):318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.10.030

Article PubMed Google Scholar 
Miyagi Y, Habara T, Hirata R, Hayashi N (2019) Feasibility of predicting live birth by combining conventional embryo evaluation with artificial intelligence applied to a blastocyst image in patients classified by age. Reproductive Med biology 18(4):344–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12284

Article Google Scholar 
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Yadav R, Banerjee D AI-Based Live Birth Prediction in IVF Cycles: A Systematic Review Without Meta-Analysis of Model Performance and Validation. PROSPERO 2026 CRD420261298569. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261298569
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L (2012) The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews, 1, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
Hojjati AT, Saadat H, Mangoli E et al (2026) Automated embryo selection using deep learning: a comparative study of 3D-CNN, hybrid, and transfer learning models. Middle East Fertil Soc J 31:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-025-00297-8

Article Google Scholar 
Theilgaard Lassen J, Fly Kragh M, Rimestad J, Nygård Johansen M, Berntsen J (2023) Development and validation of deep learning-based embryo selection across multiple days of transfer. Sci Rep 13:4235. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31136-3

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Kalyani K, Deshpande PS (2024) A deep learning model for predicting blastocyst formation from cleavage-stage human embryos using time-lapse images. Sci Rep 14 Article 28019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79175-8
Tran D, Cooke S, Illingworth PJ, Gardner DK (2019) Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 34(6):1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez064

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Salih M, Austin C, Warty RR, Tiktin C, Rolnik DL, Momeni M, Rezatofighi H, Reddy S, Smith V, Vollenhoven B, Horta F (2023) Embryo selection through artificial intelligence versus embryologists: A systematic review. Hum Reprod Open 20233(hoad031). https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad031
Borji, A., Haick, H., Pohn, B., Graf, A., Zakall, J., Islam, S. M. R., … Hatamikia,S. (2025). An integrated optimization and deep learning pipeline for predicting live birth success in IVF using feature optimization and transformer-based models. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 271, 108979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2025.108979
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(8):529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009

Article PubMed Google Scholar 
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336(7650):924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Huang B et al (2022) Using deep learning to predict the outcome of live birth from more than 10,000 embryo data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 22:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04373-5

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Lee C-I et al (2024) Associations between the artificial intelligence scoring system and live birth outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles. Reproductive Biology Endocrinol 22(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01185-y

Article Google Scholar 
Papamentzelopoulou M-S et al (2024) Assessment of artificial intelligence model and manual morphokinetic annotation system as embryo grading methods for successful live birth prediction: A retrospective monocentric study. Reproductive Biology Endocrinol 22:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01198-7

Article CAS Google Scholar 
Nguyen B et al (2024) Predicting IVF live birth probabilities using machine learning, center-specific and national registry-based models. medRxiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.20.24308970

Article Google Scholar 
Yao MWM, Nguyen ET, Retzloff MG et al (2025) Machine learning center-specific models show improved IVF live birth predictions over US national registry-based model. Nat Commun 16:3661. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58744-z

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
llingworth, P. J., Venetis, C., Gardner, D. K., Nelson, S. M., Berntsen, J., Larman,M. G., Agresta, F., Ahitan, S., Ahlström, A., Cattrall, F., Cooke, S., Demmers, K.,Gabrielsen, A., Hindkjær, J., Kelley, R. L., Knight, C., Lee, L., Lahoud, R., Mangat,M., Park, H., … Hardarson, T. (2024). Deep learning versus manual morphology-based embryo selection in IVF: a randomized, double-blind noninferiority trial. Nature medicine,30(11), 3114–3120. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03166-5
Coticchio G, Fiorentino G, Nicora G, Sciajno R, Cavalera F, Bellazzi R, Garagna S, Borini A, Zuccotti M (2021) Cytoplasmic movements of the early human embryo: imaging and artificial intelligence to predict blastocyst development. Reprod Biomed Online 42(3):521–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.12.008

Article PubMed Google Scholar 
Ueno S et al (2022) Correlation between an annotation-free embryo scoring system based on deep learning and live birth/neonatal outcomes after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer: A single-centre, large-cohort retrospective study. J Assist Reprod Genet 39(9):2089–2099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02562-5

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
Sadegh-Zadeh SA, Khanjani S, Javanmardi S, Bayat B, Naderi Z, Hajiyavand AM (2024) Catalyzing IVF outcome prediction: exploring advanced machine learning paradigms for enhanced success rate prognostication. Front Artif Intell 7:1392611. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1392611

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.