Selection of Reference miRNAs for Relative Quantification in Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) Blastocysts Produced by Hand-Made Cloning and In Vitro Fertilization

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 200-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swati Viviyan Lagah ◽  
Tanushri Jerath Sood ◽  
Prabhat Palta ◽  
Manishi Mukesh ◽  
Manmohan Singh Chauhan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Bubalus Bubalis ◽  
Relative Quantification ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Reference Mirnas

scholarly journals Solving the "right" problems for effective machine learning driven in vitro fertilization

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itay Erlich ◽  
Assaf Ben-Meir ◽  
Iris Har-Vardi ◽  
James A Grifo ◽  
Assaf Zaritsky
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Clinical Factors ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Data Intensive ◽  
Live Embryo ◽  
The Right ◽  
Visual Properties ◽  
Selection Of

Automated live embryo imaging has transformed in-vitro fertilization (IVF) into a data-intensive field. Unlike clinicians who rank embryos from the same IVF cycle cohort based on the embryos visual quality and determine how many embryos to transfer based on clinical factors, machine learning solutions usually combine these steps by optimizing for implantation prediction and using the same model for ranking the embryos within a cohort. Here we establish that this strategy can lead to sub-optimal selection of embryos. We reveal that despite enhancing implantation prediction, inclusion of clinical properties hampers ranking. Moreover, we find that ambiguous labels of failed implantations, due to either low quality embryos or poor clinical factors, confound both the optimal ranking and even implantation prediction. To overcome these limitations, we propose conceptual and practical steps to enhance machine-learning driven IVF solutions. These consist of separating the optimizing of implantation from ranking by focusing on visual properties for ranking, and reducing label ambiguity.

RNA sequencing and transcriptome analysis of buffalo ( Bubalus bubalis ) blastocysts produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer and in vitro fertilization

2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (9) ◽  
pp. 1149-1167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanushri Jerath Sood ◽  
Swati Viviyan Lagah ◽  
Manishi Mukesh ◽  
Suresh Kumar Singla ◽  
Manmohan Singh Chauhan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Somatic Cell ◽  
Rna Sequencing ◽  
Transcriptome Analysis ◽  
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer ◽  
Nuclear Transfer ◽  
Bubalus Bubalis ◽  
Vitro Fertilization

scholarly journals Selection of first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle stimulation protocol for good prognosis patients: GnRH antagonist vs. agonist protocols

2007 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. S152
Author(s):  
E.B. Johnston-MacAnanny ◽  
A.J. DiLuigi ◽  
L.L. Engmann ◽  
D.B. Maier ◽  
C.A. Benadiva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Gnrh Antagonist ◽  
Good Prognosis ◽  
Stimulation Protocol ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Selection Of

Selection of superior stimulation protocols for follicular development in a program for in vitro fertilization

1985 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Diamond ◽  
Bobby W. Webster ◽  
Catherine H. Garner ◽  
William K. Vaughn ◽  
Wayne S. Maxson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Follicular Development ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Selection Of

scholarly journals The Ethics of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis: An Opinion Piece Examining the Moral Distinction Between Positive and Negative Selection of Traits Using PGD

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-39
Author(s):  
Helena Bleeker
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Negative Selection ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Sex Selection ◽  
Genetic Profile ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Moral Distinction ◽  
Leon Kass ◽  
Selection Of

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) follows in vitro fertilization (IVF) of several ova. Negative selection (NS), or the discarding of embryos containing undesirable alleles, is currently being performed in IVF clinics. Conversely, positive selection (PS) is the discarding of embryos that do not contain a desirable allele. In other words, PS keeps an embryo because it contains a desirable genetic profile. There are many groups that support NS but there are far fewer who support PS. The bioconservative philosophy, led by philosophers such as Leon Kass, opposes PS and bioliberalism in general. Conversely, NS (and PS) of embryos resonates best of all with the bioliberalism philosophy. More specifically, a subset of bioliberalism, called transhumanism. In order to find NS morally permissible and PS morally unacceptable, one must support one’s position by making a moral distinction between the two types of selection. The major claims against PS include that it is not medically serious, that it propagates eugenics, that it propagates sex selection and that it elicits a moral repugnance which proves its immorality. In analyzing these arguments, I hope to show that none of them are consistent in their application, and that their inability to be applied universally significantly weakens their case. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document