ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Artificial Intelligence in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Current Evidence, Limitations, and Future Directions.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: From Risk Prediction to ART Translation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Miscarriage and the Microbiome: Host Genetics, Immunity, and the Reproductive Tract Ecosystem.Genes · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite significant advances in genetics, immunology, and endometrial research, the underlying cause of nearly half of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) cases remains unknown. This highlights the limitations of conventional diagnostic approaches and underscores the need for methods that can detect complex, subtle biological patterns.
objectivesTo summarize and critically assess how artificial intelligence (AI) is changing our knowledge of, ability to predict, and future therapeutic management of RPL, with a focus on machine learning (ML) approaches that identify latent biological pathways and multifactorial contributors to pregnancy loss.
methodsThis narrative review summarizes contemporary research on AI applications in reproductive medicine. Research using imaging, proteomic, genomic, clinical, and multi-omics information to create predictive or mechanistic models associated with RPL provided evidence.
resultsAI-based approaches are increasingly demonstrating the ability to detect complex interactions among environmental, immunological, biochemical, and genetic factors associated with RPL. ML and deep learning (DL) models enhance prognostic accuracy, identify novel candidate biomarkers, and provide insights into the systemic and molecular mechanisms underlying pregnancy loss. Integrating heterogeneous data through AI supports the development of personalized reproductive profiles and can improve prediction and counseling.
conclusionsAI has the potential to improve both personalized prediction and mechanistic understanding of RPL. However, clinical translation is currently hampered by a number of important issues, including small and diverse datasets, conflicting diagnostic definitions, limited external validation, and a lack of prospective clinical trials. To responsibly integrate AI tools into reproductive care, these limitations must be addressed.
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.