AccScience Publishing / GTM / Volume 2 / Issue 2 / DOI: 10.36922/gtm.0308
Cite this article
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
News and Announcements
View All

Artificial intelligence algorithms for optimizing assisted reproductive technology programs: A systematic review

Francesco Maria Bulletti1† Marco Berrettini2* Romualdo Sciorio3† Carlo Bulletti4†
Show Less
1 Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Vaud, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
2 Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, 41100 Bologna, Italy
3 Edinburgh Assisted Conception Programme, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK
4 Extra Omnes, Assisted Reproductive Technology, ART Center, Via Gallinelli, 8, 47841 Cattolica, Italy
Global Translational Medicine 2023, 2(2), 0308
Submitted: 3 March 2023 | Accepted: 26 April 2023 | Published: 29 May 2023
© 2023 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( )

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been experiencing rapid growth in recent years, and numerous applications are improving the single-step efficiency of the whole assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure. In this review, we collected all the algorithms supplying ART and selected those supporting the clinical assistance to the procedure up to the successful attempt. Those with a clear role in improving ART performances were further selected. We found a questionnaire-based algorithm identifying patients at risk for endometriosis with early management and better fertility outcome. An algorithm can detect the values of simple gamete production (male) and reservoir (female) according to gradual scale allocation, and display themas normal or abnormal, spontaneousor stimulated gamete production. This can provide significant benefits for infertile couples undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic journeys. The calculators for the starting dose of gonadotropins and the trigger timing during controlled ovarian stimulation make clinical management more efficient. With the application of AI in ART, the ability to determine the optimal number of metaphase II oocytes required for blastocyst formation and number of oocytes needed for embryo production has been significantly improved. The calculation of the implantation rate as proposed in different calculators, using the ultrasound of endometrial vascularization or the age and euploidy of the embryo transferred, may provide further advancement in managing the ART procedure with more participation from the couples to increase the efficacy of the procedures. Finally, the calculator of presumptive success with an ART program based on couples or medical center profiling and efficiency is of tremendous comfort to couples. In conclusion, algorithms and machine learning development in human reproduction are growing daily with evident benefits. Infertility treatments by in vitro fertilization (IVF) are assisted by several algorithms that improve the efficiency of each procedure step, making IVF program’s management more effortless.

Assisted reproductive technology
Blastocysts development
Embryo implantation
  1. Carson SA, Kallen AN, 2021, Diagnosis and management of infertility: A review. JAMA, 326: 65–76.


  1. Aimagambetova G, Issanov A, Terzic S, et al., 2020, The effect of psychological distress on IVF outcomes: Reality or speculations? PLoS One, 15: e0242024.


  1. Available from: country-rankings/total-fertility-rate [Last accessed on 2023 May 24].


  1. Borumandnia N, Majd HA, Khadembashi N, et al., 2021, Assessing the trend of infertility rate in 198 countries and territories in last decades. Iran J Public Health, 50: 1735–1737.


  1. Fauser BC, 2019, Towards the global coverage of a unified registry of IVF outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online, 38: 133–137.


  1. Bosch E, Bulletti C, Copperman AB, et al., 2019, How time to healthy singleton delivery could affect decision-making during infertility treatment: A Delphi consensus. Reprod Biomed Online, 38: 118–130.


  1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, et al., 2018, Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to maximize the number of oocytes retrieved from poor prognosis patients: A multicenter experience and SWOT analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 9: 317.


  1. Scaravelli G, Zacà C, Setti PE, et al., 2021, Fertilization rate as a novel indicator for cumulative live birth rate: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 9,394 complete in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril, 116: 766–773.


  1. Jin H, Shen X, Song W, et al., 2021, The development of nomograms to predict blastulation rate following cycles of in vitro fertilization in patients with tubal factor infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome, or endometriosis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 12: 751373.


  1. Setti PE, Cirillo F, Morenghi E, et al., 2021. One step further: Randomised single-centre trial comparing the direct and afterload techniques of embryo transfer. Hum Reprod, 36: 2484–2492.


  1. Scott RT Jr., de Ziegler D, 2020, Introduction: Key performance indicators in assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril, 114: 4–5.


  1. Vaiarelli A, Zacà C, Spadoni V, et al., 2023, Clinical and laboratory key performance indicators in IVF: A consensus between the Italian Society of Fertility and Sterility and Reproductive Medicine (SIFES-MR) and the Italian Society of Embryology, Reproduction and Research (SIERR). J Assist Reprod Genet.


  1. Vitagliano A, Paffoni A, Viganò P, 2023, Does maternal age affect Assisted Reproduction Technology success rates after euploid embryo transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril, S0015-0282(23)00169-3.


  1. Available from: [Last accessed on 2023 May 24].


  1. Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan CW, et al., 2020, Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: A forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet, 396: 1285–1306.


  1. Kieslinger DC, Vergouw CG, Ramos L, et al., 2023, Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): A three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 401: 1438–1446.


  1. Bulletti C, Coccia ME, Battistoni S, et al., 2010, Endometriosis and infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet, 27: 441–447.


  1. De Ziegler D, Pirtea P, Carbonnel M, et al., 2019, Assisted reproduction in endometriosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab, 33: 47–59.


  1. Ottolina J, Vignali M, Papaleo E, et al., 2022, Surgery versus IVF for the treatment of infertility associated to ovarian and deep endometriosis (SVIDOE: Surgery Versus IVF for Deep and Ovarian Endometriosis). Clinical protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 17: e0271173.


  1. Surrey E, Soliman AM, Trenz H, et al., 2020, Impact of endometriosis diagnostic delays on healthcare resource utilization and costs. Adv Ther, 37: 1087–1099.


  1. Chapron C, Lafay-Pillet MC, Santulli P, et al., 2022, A new validated screening method for endometriosis diagnosis based on patient questionnaires. EClinicalMedicine, 44: 101263.


  1. Bailleul A, Niro J, Du Cheyron J, et al., 2021, Infertility management according to the Endometriosis Fertility Index in patients operated for endometriosis: What is the optimal time frame? PLoS One, 16: e0251372.


  1. Barnhart K, Dunsmoor-Su R, Coutifaris C, 2002, Effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 77: 1148–1155.


  1. Cakmak H, Taylor HS, 2011, Implantation failure: Molecular mechanisms and clinical treatment. Hum Reprod Update, 17: 242–253.


  1. Boitrelle F, Shah R, Saleh R, et al., 2021, The sixth edition of the WHO manual for human semen analysis: A critical review and SWOT analysis. Life (Basel), 11: 1368.


  1. Wang X, Jin L, Mao YD, et al., 2021, Evaluation of ovarian reserve tests and age in the prediction of poor ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation-a real-world data analysis of 89,002 patients. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 12: 702061.


  1. Esteves SC, Alviggi C, Humaidan P, et al., 2019, The POSEIDON criteria and Its measure of success through the eyes of clinicians and embryologists. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 10: 814.


  1. Kobanawa M, 2023, The gonadotropins starting dose calculator, which can be adjusted the target number of oocytes and stimulation duration days to achieve individualized controlled ovarian stimulation in Japanese patients. Reprod Med Biol, 22: e12499.


  1. Correa N, Cerquides J, Arcos JL, et al., 2022, Supporting first FSH dosage for ovarian stimulation with machine learning. Reprod Biomed Online, 45: 1039–1045.


  1. Fanton M, Nutting V, Solano F, et al., 2022, An interpretable machine learning model for predicting the optimal day of trigger during ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril, 118: 101–108.


  1. Esteves SC, Yarali H, Ubaldi FM, et al., 2020, Validation of ART calculator for predicting the number of metaphase II oocytes required for obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 10: 917.


  1. Arkes HR, Aberegg SK, Arpin KA, 2022, Analysis of physicians’ probability estimates of a medical outcome based on a sequence of events. JAMA Netw Open, 5: e2218804.


  1. Ata B, Kalafat E, Somigliana E, 2021, A new definition of recurrent implantation failure on the basis of anticipated blastocyst aneuploidy rates across female age. Fertil Steril, 116: 1320–1327.


  1. Malhotra N, Malhotra J, Malhotra N, et al., 2010, Endometrial receptivity and scoring for prediction of implantation and newer markers. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 4: 439–446.


  1. Koot YE, Saxtorph MH, Goddijn M, et al., 2019, What is the prognosis for a live birth after unexplained recurrent implantation failure following IVF/ICSI? Hum Reprod, 34: 2044–2052.


  1. Available from: [Last accessed on 2023 May 24].


  1. MacLernon DJ, Raja EA, Toner JP, et al., 2022, Predicting personalized cumulative live birth following in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 117: 326–338.


  1. Available from: [Last accessed on 2023 May 24].


  1. Liao Q, Zhang Q, Feng X, et al., 2021, Development of deep learning algorithms for predicting blastocyst formation and quality by time-lapse monitoring. Commun Biol, 4: 415.


  1. Kragh MF, Karstoft H, 2021, Embryo selection with artificial intelligence: How to evaluate and compare methods? J Assist Reprod Genet. 38: 1675–1689.


  1. Murray KA, Gibson MI, 2022, Chemical approaches to cryopreservation. Nat Rev Chem, 6: 579–593.


  1. Vanderzwalmen P, Ectors F, Panagiotidis Y, et al., 2020, The evolution of the cryopreservation techniques in reproductive medicine-exploring the character of the vitrified state intra-and extracellularly to better understand cell survival after cryopreservation. Reprod Med, 1: 142–157.


  1. Aplin JD, Stevens A, 2022, Use of ‘omics for endometrial timing. Hum Reprod, 37: 644–650.


  1. Correia KF, Missmer SA, Weinerman R, et al., 2023, Development of a model to estimate the optimal number of oocytes to attempt to fertilize during assisted reproductive technology treatment. JAMA Netw Open, 6: e2249395.


  1. Blair DL, Morgan HM, McLernon DJ, 2021, Women’s perspectives on smartphone apps for fertility tracking and predicting conception: A mixed methods study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care, 26: 119–127.


  1. Lee C, Willis A, Chen C, et al., 2023, Development of a machine learning model for sonographic assessment of gestational age. JAMA Netw Open, 6: e2248685.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Back to top
Global Translational Medicine, Electronic ISSN: 2811-0021 Published by AccScience Publishing