Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38429464›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2024

The prospect of artificial intelligence to personalize assisted reproductive technology.

Simon Hanassab, Ali Abbara, Arthur C Yeung, Margaritis Voliotis, Krasimira Tsaneva-Atanasova, Tom W Kelsey, Geoffrey H Trew, Scott M Nelson, Thomas Heinis, Waljit S Dhillo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. AI in Childbirth and Emerging Alternatives to Traditional Fertility Treatments.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026
    Review
  9. AI in Childbirth and Emerging Alternatives to Traditional Fertility Treatments.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Simon Hanassab *Department of Metabolism, Digestion, and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9112-0486
Ali Abbara *Department of Metabolism, Digestion, and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Arthur C YeungDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion, and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Margaritis VoliotisDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Krasimira Tsaneva-AtanasovaDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6294-7051
Tom W KelseySchool of Computer Science, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8091-1458
Geoffrey H TrewDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion, and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Scott M NelsonThe Fertility Partnership, Oxford, UK.
Thomas HeinisDepartment of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Waljit S DhilloDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion, and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK. w.dhillo@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5950-4316

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infertility affects 1-in-6 couples, with repeated intensive cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART) required by many to achieve a desired live birth. In ART, typically, clinicians and laboratory staff consider patient characteristics, previous treatment responses, and ongoing monitoring to determine treatment decisions. However, the reproducibility, weighting, and interpretation of these characteristics are contentious, and highly operator-dependent, resulting in considerable reliance on clinical experience. Artificial intelligence (AI) is ideally suited to handle, process, and analyze large, dynamic, temporal datasets with multiple intermediary outcomes that are generated during an ART cycle. Here, we review how AI has demonstrated potential for optimization and personalization of key steps in a reproducible manner, including: drug selection and dosing, cycle monitoring, induction of oocyte maturation, and selection of the most competent gametes and embryos, to improve the overall efficacy and safety of ART.

Identifiers

PMID38429464
PMCPMC10907618

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.