Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38610202›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Predicting Male Infertility Using Artificial Neural Networks: A Review of the Literature.

Vivian Schmeis Arroyo, Marco Iosa, Gabriella Antonucci, Daniela De Bartolo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Vivian Schmeis ArroyoDepartment of Psychology, University Sapienza of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Marco IosaDepartment of Psychology, University Sapienza of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-3887
Gabriella AntonucciDepartment of Psychology, University Sapienza of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0253-9029
Daniela De BartoloSanta Lucia Foundation, Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Health Care (IRCCS), 00179 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6882-5381

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Male infertility is a relevant public health problem, but there is no systematic review of the different machine learning (ML) models and their accuracy so far. The present review aims to comprehensively investigate the use of ML algorithms in predicting male infertility, thus reporting the accuracy of the used models in the prediction of male infertility as a primary outcome. Particular attention will be paid to the use of artificial neural networks (ANNs). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct between 15 July and 23 October 2023, conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed a quality assessment of the included studies using the recommended tools suggested for the type of study design adopted. We also made a screening of the Risk of Bias (RoB) associated with the included studies. Thus, 43 relevant publications were included in this review, for a total of 40 different ML models detected. The studies included reported a good quality, even if RoB was not always good for all the types of studies. The included studies reported a median accuracy of 88% in predicting male infertility using ML models. We found only seven studies using ANN models for male infertility prediction, reporting a median accuracy of 84%.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencemachine learningmale infertilitystatistical models

Identifiers

PMID38610202
PMCPMC11011284

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.