Artificial Intelligence in Reproductive Medicine – An Ethical Perspective

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is steadily being integrated into all areas of medicine. In reproductive medicine, artificial intelligence methods can be utilized to improve the selection and prediction of sperm cells, oocytes, and embryos and to generate better predictive models for in vitro fertilization. The use of artificial intelligence in this field is justified by the suffering of persons or couples who wish to have children but are unable to conceive. However, research into the use of artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine is still in the early experimental stage and furthermore raises complex normative questions. There are ethical research challenges because evidence of the efficacy of certain pertinent systems is often lacking and because of the increased difficulty of ensuring informed consent on the part of the affected persons. Other ethically relevant issues include the potential risks for offspring and the difficulty of providing sufficient information. The opportunity to fulfill the desire to have children affects the welfare of patients and their reproductive autonomy. Ultimately, ensuring more accurate predictions and allowing physicians to devote more time to their patients will have a positive effect. Nevertheless, clinicians must be able to process patient data conscientiously. When using artificial intelligence, numerous actors are involved in making the diagnosis and deciding on the appropriate therapy, raising questions about who is ultimately responsible when mistakes occur. Questions of fairness arise with regard to resource allocation and cost reimbursement. Thus, before implementing artificial intelligence in clinical practice, it is necessary to critically examine the quantity and quality of the data used and to address issues of transparency. In the medium and long term, it would be necessary to confront the undesirable impact and social dynamics that may accompany the use of artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine.

Keywords

artificial intelligence - reproductive medicine - infertility - medical ethics - research ethics

Publication History

Received: 23 December 2021

Accepted after revision: 29 May 2022

Article published online:
11 January 2023

• References/Literatur

• 1 Gomez-Gonzalez E, Gomez E, Rivas-Marquez J. et al. Artificial intelligence in medicine and healthcare: a review and classification of current and near-future applications and their ethical and social impact. arXiv 2020; DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.09778.
• 2 Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthc J 2019; 6: 94-98 DOI: 10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94. (PMID: 31363513)
• 3 Jannes M, Friele M, Jannes C, Woopen C. Algorithmen in der digitalen Gesundheitsversorgung. Eine interdisziplinäre Analyse. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2018. DOI: 10.11586/2019053
• 4 Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019; 25: 44-56 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7. (PMID: 30617339)
• 5 Kaul V, Enslin S, Gross SA. History of artificial intelligence in medicine. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 807-812 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.040. (PMID: 32565184)
• 6 Sexty R, Griesinger G, Kayser J. et al. Fertilitätsbezogene Lebensqualität bei Patientinnen in deutschen Kinderwunschzentren. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76: V14 DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1571376.
• 7 Westermann AM, Alkatout I. Ist unerfüllter Kinderwunsch ein Leiden? – Der Leidensbegriff im Kontext der Kinderwunschtherapie. Ethik Med 2020; 32: 125-139 DOI: 10.1007/s00481-019-00556-z.
• 8 Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 312: 366 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92957-4. (PMID: 79723)
• 9 Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21: 411-426 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmv016. (PMID: 25801630)
• 10 Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J. et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 185-324 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.005. (PMID: 30053940)
• 11 Bartnitzky S, Blumenauer V, Czeromin U. et al. D·I·R Annual 2020 – The German IVF-Registry. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 2021; 18: 203-247
• 12 Zaninovic N, Rosenwaks Z. Artificial intelligence in human in vitro fertilization and embryology. Fertil Steril 2020; 114: 914-920 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.157. (PMID: 33160513)
• 13 Grüber K, Gruisbourne BD, Pömsl J. Präimplantationsdiagnostik in Deutschland. Handreichung. Berlin: IMEW; 2016 Accessed December 23, 2021 at: https://www.imew.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/dokumente_2016/HandreichungZurPID_20160301.pdf
• 14 Wang R, Pan W, Jin L. et al. Artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine. Reproduction 2019; 158: R139-R154 DOI: 10.1530/REP-18-0523. (PMID: 30970326)
• 15 Raef B, Ferdousi R. A Review of Machine Learning Approaches in Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Acta Inform Med 2019; 27: 205-211 DOI: 10.5455/aim.2019.27.205-211. (PMID: 31762579)
• 16 Zuteilungskriterien im Gesundheitswesen: Grenzen und Alternativen. Dengler K, Fangerau H. Bielefeld: Transcript; 2013
• 17 Bernard A. Das Diktat der Fruchtbarkeit. In: Woopen C. Fortpflanzungsmedizin in Deutschland: Entwicklungen, Fragen, Kontroversen. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung; 2016: 11-19
• 18 De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS. et al. ART in Europe, 2015: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020: hoz038 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoz038. (PMID: 32123753)
• 19 Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF. et al. Improvements in IVF in women of advanced age. J Endocrinol 2016; 230: F1-F6 DOI: 10.1530/JOE-16-0105. (PMID: 27154334)
• 20 Stoop D, Ermini B, Polyzos NP. et al. Reproductive potential of a metaphase II oocyte retrieved after ovarian stimulation: an analysis of 23 354 ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 2030-2035 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des131. (PMID: 22552690)
• 21 Noorbakhsh-Sabet N, Zand R, Zhang Y. et al. Artificial Intelligence Transforms the Future of Health Care. Am J Med 2019; 132: 795-801 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.01.017. (PMID: 30710543)
• 22 Siristatidis C, Vogiatzi P, Pouliakis A. et al. Predicting IVF outcome: A proposed web-based system using artificial intelligence. In Vivo 2016; 30: 507-512 (PMID: 27381616)
• 23 Mortimer ST, van der Horst G, Mortimer D. The future of computer-aided sperm analysis. Asian J Androl 2015; 17: 545-553 DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.154312. (PMID: 25926614)
• 24 Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt JV, Parekattil SJ. Medical management of male infertility in the absence of a specific etiology. Semin Reprod Med 2014; 32: 313-318 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1375184. (PMID: 24919031)
• 25 Goodson SG, White S, Stevans AM. et al. CASAnova: a multiclass support vector machine model for the classification of human sperm motility patterns. Biol Reprod 2017; 97: 698-708 DOI: 10.1093/biolre/iox120. (PMID: 29036474)
• 26 Girela JL, Gil D, Johnsson M. et al. Semen parameters can be predicted from environmental factors and lifestyle using artificial intelligence methods. Biol Reprod 2013; 88: 99 DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.112.104653. (PMID: 23446456)
• 27 Yanez L, Han J, Behr B. et al. Human oocyte developmental potential is predicted by mechanical properties within hours after fertilization. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 10809 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10809. (PMID: 26904963)
• 28 Cavalera F, Zanoni M, Merico V. et al. A neural network-based identification of developmentally competent or incompetent mouse fully-grown oocytes. J Vis Exp 2018; 133: 56668 DOI: 10.3791/56668. (PMID: 29553524)
• 29 Saeedi P, Yee D, Au J. et al. Automatic Identification of Human Blastocyst Components via Texture. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2017; 64: 2968-2978 DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2017.2759665. (PMID: 28991729)
• 30 Khosravi P, Kazemi E, Zhan Q. et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Digit Med 2019; 2: 21 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0096-y. (PMID: 31304368)
• 31 Kaufmann SJ, Eastaugh JL, Snowden S. et al. The application of neural networks in predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1454-1457 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/12.7.1454. (PMID: 9262277)
• 32 Durairaj M, Thamilselvan P. Applications of Artificial Neural Network for IVF Data Analysis and Prediction. JEC&AS 2013; 2: 11-15
• 33 Song Z, Li W, O'leary S. et al. Can the use of diagnostic and prognostic categorisation tailor the need for assisted reproductive technology in infertile couples?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2021; 61: 297-303 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13273. (PMID: 33135775)
• 34 Topol EJ. Welcoming New Guidelines for AI clinical research. Nat Med 2020; 26: 1318-1320 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-020-1042-x. (PMID: 32908274)
• 35 Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA. et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ 2020; 368: m689 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m689. (PMID: 32213531)
• 36 Genin K, Grote T. Randomized Controlled Trials in Medical AI. Philosophy of Medicine 2021; 2 DOI: 10.5195/philmed.2021.27.
• 37 Harper J, Magli MC, Lundin K. et al. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory?. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 303-313 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der414. (PMID: 22166806)
• 38 Kreuzer VK, Kimmel M, Schiffner J. et al. Possible Reasons for Discontinuation of Therapy: an Analysis of 571 071 Treatment Cycles From the German IVF Registry. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018; 78: 984-990 DOI: 10.1055/a-0715-2654. (PMID: 30364331)
• 39 Gameiro S, Boivin J, Peronace L. et al. Why do patients discontinue fertility treatment? A systematic review of reasons and predictors of discontinuation in fertility treatment. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18: 652-669 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dms031. (PMID: 22869759)
• 40 Ergin RN, Polat A, Kars B. et al. Social stigma and familial attitudes related to infertility. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 15: 46-49 DOI: 10.4274/tjod.04307. (PMID: 29662716)
• 41 Husain W, Imran M. Infertility as seen by the infertile couples from a collectivistic culture. J Community Psychol 2021; 49: 354-360 DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22463. (PMID: 33131049)
• 42 UN-Vollversammlung. Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte. Paris: Vereinte Nationen; 10.12.1948 Accessed October 12, 2021 at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
• 43 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 1104-1110 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1139. (PMID: 26364838)
• 44 Robertson JA. Children of Choice. Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994
• 45 Callahan S. The Ethical Challenges of the New Reproductive Technologies. In: Morrison EE. Health Care Ethics: Critical Issues for the 21st Century. 2. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2009: 71-86
• 46 Coiera E. On algorithms, machines, and medicine. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 166-167 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30835-0. (PMID: 30583847)
• 47 Rockliff HE, Lightman SL, Rhidian E. et al. A systematic review of psychosocial factors associated with emotional adjustment in in vitro fertilization patients. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 594-613 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmu010. (PMID: 24676468)
• 48 Deutsches IVF-Register. Jahrbuch 2019. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 2020; 5: 199-239 Accessed December 23, 2021 at: https://www.deutsches-ivf-register.de/perch/resources/dir-jahrbuch-2019-de.pdf
• 49 Ahuja AS. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine on the Future Role of the Physician. PeerJ 2019; 7: e7702 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7702. (PMID: 31592346)
• 50 de Miguel I, Sanz B, Lazcoz G. Machine learning in the EU health care context: exploring the ethical, legal and social issues. iCS 2020; 23: 1139-1153 DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1719185.
• 51 Cohen IG, Amarasingham R, Shah A. et al. The legal and ethical concerns that arise from using complex predictive analytics in health care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33: 1139-1147 DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0048.
• 52 Ranisch R. Consultation with Doctor Twitter: Consent Fatigue, and the Role of Developers in Digital Medical Ethics. Am J Bioeth 2021; 21: 24-25 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2021.1926595. (PMID: 34152918)
• 53 Kohli M, Prevedello LM, Filice RW. et al. Implementing machine learning in radiology practice and research. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208: 754-760 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.17224. (PMID: 28125274)
• 54 Price WN. Big Data and Black-Box Medical Algorithms. Sci Transl Med 2018; 10 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aao5333. (PMID: 30541791)
• 55 Rudin C. Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead. Nat Mach Intell 2019; 1: 206-215 DOI: 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x. (PMID: 35603010)
• 56 Gaube S, Suresh H, Raue M. et al. Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids. NPJ Digit Med 2021; 4: 31 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-021-00385-9. (PMID: 33608629)
• 57 Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter CH, Kupka MS. et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020: hoz044 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoz044. (PMID: 32042927)
• 58 Passet-Wittig J, Bujard M. Medically assisted Reproduction in developed Countries: Overview and societal Challenges. In: Schneider NF, Kreyenfeld M. Research Handbook on the Sociology of the Family. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021: 417-438 DOI: 10.4337/9781788975544
• 59 Rauprich O, Berns E, Vollmann J. Who should pay for assisted reproductive techniques? Answers from patients, professionals and the general public in Germany. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 1225-1233 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq056. (PMID: 20228390)
• 60 Maddox TM, Rumsfeld JS, Payne PRO. Questions for Artificial Intelligence in Health Care. JAMA 2019; 321: 31-32 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.18932. (PMID: 30535130)
• 61 Ross L. Reproductive Justice: An Introduction. Oakland: University of California Press; 2017
• 62 Mau S. Das metrische Wir. Über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp; 2017
• 63 Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C. et al. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 2019; 366: 447-453 DOI: 10.1126/science.aax2342. (PMID: 31649194)
• 64 Barocas S, Selbst AD. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif Law Rev 2016; 104: 671 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2477899.
• 65 Castelvecchi D. Can we open the black box of AI?. Nature 2016; 538: 20-23 DOI: 10.1038/538020a. (PMID: 27708329)
• 66 Cohen IG. Informed Consent and Medical Artificial Intelligence: What to Tell the Patient?. Georgetown Law J 2020; 108: 1425-1469 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3529576.
• 67 Wöhlke S, Schicktanz S. ‘Special Issue: Why Ethically Reflect on Empirical Studies in Empirical Ethics? Case Studies and Commentaries’. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2019; 14: 424-427 DOI: 10.1177/1556264619862395. (PMID: 31390930)
• 68 Turley P, Meyer MN, Wang N. et al. Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 78-86 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr2105065. (PMID: 34192436)
• 69 Heintz B. Numerische Differenz. Überlegungen zu einer Soziologie des (quantitativen) Vergleichs. Z Soziol 2010; 39: 162-181 DOI: 10.1515/zfsoz-2010-0301.
• 70 Boyd PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B. et al. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome. BJOG 2008; 115: 689-696 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01700.x. (PMID: 18410651)
• 71 Ranisch R. Liberale Eugenik? Kritik der selektiven Reproduktion. Berlin: Metzler; 2021