Back

Internal and External Validation of an Ensemble Learning Model Integrating Zygote Morphokinetics with Conventional Embryo Assessment for Blastocyst Prediction

ZHAO, M.; LIU, J.; HAN, D.; ZHANG, C.; ZHOU, Y.; CHEN, S.; LIU, C.

2026-08-23 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.08.19.26359526 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: To perform internal and external validation of a gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT) fusion model that integrates zygote morphokinetic parameters with conventional embryo assessment features for blastocyst prediction, and to compare its discriminative performance against senior embryologists. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 631 normally fertilized zygotes from 218 treatment cycles. A GBDT fusion model integrating 84 zygote morphokinetic parameters and 8 conventional assessment features was evaluated internally (5-fold cross-validation) and externally on a public dataset of 523 embryos with blastocyst outcomes. Model performance was assessed using area under the ROC curve (AUC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), F1 score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Discrimination was compared with embryologist consensus using the DeLong test; agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa. Results: The model achieved an internal AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82), AUPRC 0.72, F1 0.73, sensitivity 0.74, specificity 0.77, PPV 0.72, and NPV 0.79. External validation on the public dataset demonstrated acceptable generalizability (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). The model significantly outperformed embryologist consensus (AUC 0.70, P<0.001) with moderate agreement (kappa=0.56). Decision curve analysis confirmed clinical net benefit at threshold probabilities of 0.15-0.55. Conclusions: The GBDT fusion model integrating zygote morphokinetics with conventional assessment demonstrates good discrimination and external generalizability for blastocyst prediction, providing an interpretable decision-support tool for embryo selection in IVF practice.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.