O-098 Embryo selection using Artificial Intelligence (AI): Epistemic and ethical considerations

Abstract

\n \n \n What are the epistemic and ethical considerations of clinically implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms in embryo selection?\n \n \n \n AI embryo selection algorithms used to date are “black-box” models with significant epistemic and ethical issues, and there are no trials assessing their clinical effectiveness.\n \n \n \n The innovation of time-lapse imaging offers the potential to generate vast quantities of data for embryo assessment. Computer Vision allows image data to be analysed using algorithms developed via machine learning which learn and adapt as they are exposed to more data. Most algorithms are developed using neural networks and are uninterpretable (or “black box”). Uninterpretable models are either too complicated to understand or proprietary, in which case comprehension is impossible for outsiders. In the IVF context, these outsiders include doctors, embryologists and patients, which raises ethical questions for its use in embryo selection.\n \n \n \n We performed a scoping review of articles evaluating AI for embryo selection in IVF. We considered the epistemic and ethical implications of current approaches.\n \n \n \n We searched Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the EU Clinical Trials Register for full text papers evaluating AI for embryo selection using the following key words: artificial intelligence* OR AI OR neural network* OR machine learning OR support vector machine OR automatic classification AND IVF OR in vitro fertilisation OR embryo*, as well as relevant MeSH and Emtree terms for Medline and Embase respectively.\n \n \n \n We found no trials evaluating clinical effectiveness either published or registered. We found efficacy studies which looked at 2 types of outcomes – accuracy for predicting pregnancy or live birth and agreement with embryologist evaluation. Some algorithms were shown to broadly differentiate well between “good-” and “poor-” quality embryos but not between embryos of similar quality, which is the clinical need. Almost universally, the AI models were opaque (“black box”) in that at least some part of the process was uninterpretable.\n “Black box” models are problematic for epistemic and ethical reasons.\n Epistemic concerns include information asymmetries between algorithm developers and doctors, embryologists and patients; the risk of biased prediction caused by known and/or unknown confounders during the training process; difficulties in real-time error checking due to limited interpretability; the economics of buying into commercial proprietary models, brittle to variation in the treatment process; and an overall difficulty troubleshooting.\n Ethical pitfalls include the risk of misrepresenting patient values; concern for the health and well-being of future children; the risk of disvaluing disability; possible societal implications; and a responsibility gap, in the event of adverse events.\n \n \n \n Our search was limited to the two main medical research databases. Although we checked article references for more publications, we were less likely to identify studies that were not indexed in Medline or Embase, especially if they were not cited in studies identified in our search.\n \n \n \n It is premature to implement AI for embryo selection outside of a clinical trial. AI for embryo selection is potentially useful, but must be done carefully and transparently, as the epistemic and ethical issues are significant. We advocate for the use of interpretable AI models to overcome these issues.\n \n \n \n not applicable\n