The IRMA Community
Newsletters
Research IRM
Click a keyword to search titles using our InfoSci-OnDemand powered search:
|
A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Algorithms for Embryo Selection in In Vitro Fertilization
|
|
Author(s): Dattatray G. Takale (Avantika University, Ujjain, India), Satyajit Pangaonkar (Avantika University, Ujjain, India), Parikshit N. Mahalle (Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Pune, India), Mahesh Shinde (MES Wadia COE, Pune, India)and Gopal Deshmukh (Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, Pune, India)
Copyright: 2026
Pages: 20
Source title:
Revolutionizing Medicine With Autonomous Robotics
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Dattatray Gopal Takale (Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, India), Parikshit N. Mahalle (Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, India), Bipin Sule (Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, India), Vivek S. Deshpande (Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, India)and Nilesh P. Sable (Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, India)
DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3373-0179-2.ch008
Purchase
|
Abstract
Embryo selection plays a critical role in the success of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), yet conventional methods relying on morphological assessment and expert judgment are often subjective and inconsistent. To address these limitations, this study investigates the application of machine learning (ML) algorithms for automated, objective, and accurate embryo classification. A comparative analysis was conducted on six prominent ML models: Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), ResNet, and ConvNeXT. Publicly available datasets, including IVF time-lapse sequences and the Early Embryo Viability Assessment (Eeva) dataset, were utilized for training and validation. Evaluation metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and Area Under the Curve (AUC) were employed to assess model performance. The results show that deep learning models, especially ConvNeXT and ResNet, performed better than traditional algorithms, reaching accuracy scores over 93% and high AUC values.
Related Content
|
R. N. Ravikumar, S. Aarthi.
© 2026.
32 pages.
|
|
P. Sriramalakshmi, H. Bavya Shree, Sonakshi Agrawal.
© 2026.
30 pages.
|
|
Gurpreet Singh, Vakil Singh.
© 2026.
36 pages.
|
|
Y. Sree Vani, P. Selvakumar, B. Prabhanjan Yadav, M. Kanipriya, M. R. Arun, Arti Bansal, T. C. Manjunath.
© 2026.
30 pages.
|
|
T. Grace Shalini, P. Bhavesh, S. S. Krishikaa Mathi Bharathi, Nayantra Ramakrishnan.
© 2026.
34 pages.
|
|
Muhammad Usman Tariq.
© 2026.
26 pages.
|
|
Ma. de los Angeles Alamilla Daniel, Angel Ricardo Licona RodrÃguez.
© 2026.
30 pages.
|
|
|