Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 15, 2026
Fertility Preservation Through Oocyte Vitrification: Clinical and Laboratory Perspectives
Published on: September 16, 2021
Personal KPIs in IVF Laboratory: Are They Measurable or Distortable? A Case Study Using AI-Based Benchmarking
Péter Mauchart1,2, Emese Wágner2, Krisztina Gödöny1,2
1National Laboratory on Human Reproduction, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary.
Background:
Key performance indicators (KPIs) are widely used to evaluate embryologist performance in IVF laboratories, yet they are sensitive to patient demographics, treatment indications, and case allocation. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers opportunities to benchmark personal KPIs against context-aware expectations. This study evaluated whether personal CPR-based KPIs are measurable or distorted when compared with AI-derived predictions.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed 474 ICSI-only cycles performed by a single senior embryologist between 2022 and 2024. A Random Forest trained on 1294 institutional cycles generated AI-predicted clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs). Observed and predicted CPRs were compared across age groups, BMI categories, and physicians using cycle-level paired comparisons and a grouped calibration statistic.
Results:
Overall CPRs were similar between observed and predicted outcomes (0.31 vs. 0.33, p = 0.412). Age-stratified analysis showed significant discrepancy in the >40 group (0.11 vs. 0.18, p = 0.003), whereas CPR in the 35-40 group exceeded predictions (0.39 vs. 0.33, p = 0.018). BMI groups showed no miscalibration (p = 0.458). Physician-level comparisons suggested variability (p = 0.021), while grouped calibration was not statistically significant (p = 0.073).
Conclusions:
Personal embryologist KPIs are measurable but influenced by patient and physician factors. AI benchmarking may improve fairness by adjusting for case mix, yet systematic bias can persist in high-risk subgroups. Multi-operator, multi-center validation is needed to confirm generalizability.
