ArticleScientific reports2024
Machine learning algorithms in constructing prediction models for assisted reproductive technology (ART) related live birth outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pregnancy AI: Development and Internal Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Tool to Predict Live Births in ICSI and IVF Cycles Using Clinical Features and Embryo Images.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction of live birth after IVF using the morphological uterus sonographic assessment group features of adenomyosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Retrospective comparative analysis of pre-IVF vaginal and semen microbiological cultures in infertile couples highlights absence of microbial concordance.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- The Influencing Factors and Predictive Algorithm of Pregnancy Outcomes in IVF/ICSI-ET Patients.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning prediction of live birth after freeze-all FET cycles across transfer-order subgroups.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Development and External Validation of Machine Learning Model to Predict Live Birth Following Assisted Reproductive Technology in Women with Ovarian Endometriomas: A Decision-Support Tool.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Effect of air pollution on clinical pregnancy outcomes following intrauterine insemination: a machine learning-based analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Temporal Trends and Machine Learning-Based Risk Prediction of Female Infertility: A Cross-Cohort Analysis Using NHANES Data (2015-2023).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Assessing Reproductive Aging: Role of Mitochondria, Oxidative Stress, and Telomere Biology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Currently applicable models for predicting live birth outcomes in patients who received assisted reproductive technology (ART) have methodological or study design limitations that greatly obstruct their dissemination and application. Models suitable for Chinese couples have not yet been identified. We conducted a retrospective study by using a database includes a total of 11,938 couples who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment between January 2015 and December 2022 in a medical institution of southwest China Yunnan province. Multiple candidate predictors were screened out by using the importance scores. Four machine learning (ML) algorithms including random forest, extreme gradient boosting, light gradient boosting machine and binary logistic regression were used to construct prediction models. An initial assessment of the predictive performance was conducted and validated by using cross-validation and bootstrap methods. A total of seven predictors were identified, namely maternal age, duration of infertility, basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), progressive sperm motility, progesterone (P) on HCG day, estradiol (E2) on HCG day, and luteinizing hormone (LH) on HCG day. Of the four predictive models, the random forest model and the logistic regression model were considered to have the optimal performance, with the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) curves of 0.671 (95% CI 0.630-0.713) and 0.674 (95% CI 0.627-0.720). The Brier scores were 0.183 (95% CI 0.170-0.196) and 0.183 (95% CI 0.170-0.196), respectively. Considering the simplicity of model fitting, we recommend the logistic regression model as the best predictive model for live birth. Furthermore, maternal age, P on HCG day and E2 on HCG day were deemed to have the highest contribution to model prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.