Balkan Journal of Medical Genetics

EMBRYO QUALITY PREDICTIVE MODELS BASED ON CUMULUS CELLS GENE EXPRESSION
Devjak R, Burnik Papler T, Verdenik I, Fon Tacer K, Vrtačnik Bokal E
*Corresponding Author: Rok Devjak, M.D., Ph.D., Division of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Zaloška 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Tel: +386-1-5879-282; Fax: +386-1-5879-303. E-mail: rdevjak@onko-i.si
page: 5

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics between the two embryo groups (high quality vs. low quality) were not altered significantly by age, BMI and patients’ distribution tests in a binary logistic regression model (Table 1). The pregnancy rate for the observed group of patients was 0.53 and delivery rate was 0.47. Because RNA level from four CC samples of low quality embryos was to low, only 32 CC samples were analyzed, therefore, 58 CC samples were included in the predictive model construction. The Mann-Whitney U test showed significant difference between CC gene expression of oocytes resulting in high quality and low quality embryos only in AMHR2 (p = 0.030). The data were then split according to AMHR2 expression (high or low, where the median was the cut-off value) and genes were further tested in each group (Table 2). In the AMHR2 gene, high expression group LIF was shown to differ significantly between high quality and low quality embryos (p = 0.033). Therefore, AMHR2 and LIF were taken for the construction of the embryo quality outcome prediction model. Binary Logistic Regression Model. The AMHR2 and LIF CC expression values were used to construct three different binary logistic regression models for predicting a high quality embryo outcome. First, AMHR2 and LIF CC expression values were used in separate models, and their prediction values yielded an AUC of 0.69 ± 0.08 and 0.63 ± 0.08, respectively. Then, both genes CC expression values were combined into one model in which the prediction value yielded an AUC of 0.72 ± 0.08. Decision Tree Model. The same procedure was used in a data mining protocol for constructing three decision trees with AMHR2 and LIF CC expression values. A simple data discretization was used for node splitting in the decision tree where expression values were stratified into two equal frequency intervals (high and low CC expression values). The decision tree model was tested using 50.0% of the data for learning and 50.0% data for testing. Testing was then repeated 100 times; median AUC and standard deviation were calculated. First, AMHR2 and LIF CC expression values were used to construct separate decision tree models, and their prediction values yielded an AUC of 0.67 ± 0.01 and 0.57 ± 0.02, respectively. Combining both genes resulted in a decision tree (Figure 1) with an AUC of 0.73 ± 0.03.

Number 27 VOL. 27 (2), 2024	Number 27 VOL. 27 (1), 2024
Number 26 Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 All in one	Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023
Number 26 VOL. 26, 2023 Supplement	Number 26 VOL. 26(1), 2023
Number 25 VOL. 25(2), 2022	Number 25 VOL. 25 (1), 2022
Number 24 VOL. 24(2), 2021	Number 24 VOL. 24(1), 2021
Number 23 VOL. 23(2), 2020	Number 22 VOL. 22(2), 2019
Number 22 VOL. 22(1), 2019	Number 22 VOL. 22, 2019 Supplement
Number 21 VOL. 21(2), 2018	Number 21 VOL. 21 (1), 2018
Number 21 VOL. 21, 2018 Supplement	Number 20 VOL. 20 (2), 2017
Number 20 VOL. 20 (1), 2017	Number 19 VOL. 19 (2), 2016
Number 19 VOL. 19 (1), 2016	Number 18 VOL. 18 (2), 2015
Number 18 VOL. 18 (1), 2015	Number 17 VOL. 17 (2), 2014
Number 17 VOL. 17 (1), 2014	Number 16 VOL. 16 (2), 2013
Number 16 VOL. 16 (1), 2013	Number 15 VOL. 15 (2), 2012
Number 15 VOL. 15, 2012 Supplement	Number 15 Vol. 15 (1), 2012
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (2), 2011	Number 14 The 9th Balkan Congress of Medical Genetics
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (1), 2011	Number 13 Vol. 13 (2), 2010
Number 13 Vol.13 (1), 2010	Number 12 Vol.12 (2), 2009
Number 12 Vol.12 (1), 2009	Number 11 Vol.11 (2),2008
Number 11 Vol.11 (1),2008	Number 10 Vol.10 (2), 2007
Number 10 10 (1),2007	Number 9 1&2, 2006
Number 9 3&4, 2006	Number 8 1&2, 2005
Number 8 3&4, 2004	Number 7 1&2, 2004
Number 6 3&4, 2003	Number 6 1&2, 2003
Number 5 3&4, 2002	Number 5 1&2, 2002
Number 4 Vol.3 (4), 2000	Number 4 Vol.2 (4), 1999
Number 4 Vol.1 (4), 1998	Number 4 3&4, 2001
Number 4 1&2, 2001	Number 3 Vol.3 (3), 2000
Number 3 Vol.2 (3), 1999	Number 3 Vol.1 (3), 1998
Number 2 Vol.3(2), 2000	Number 2 Vol.1 (2), 1998
Number 2 Vol.2 (2), 1999	Number 1 Vol.3 (1), 2000
Number 1 Vol.2 (1), 1999	Number 1 Vol.1 (1), 1998

About the journal ::: Editorial ::: Subscription ::: Information for authors ::: Contact