ArticleScientific reports2026
Treatment management algorithm for natural frozen embryo transfer cycles using a real-time ovulation prediction machine learning model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to develop an AI-based NC-FET Treatment Management Algorithm (NTMA), decision-support system that predicts ovulation in real time to manage and optimize natural frozen embryo transfer cycle (NC-FET) scheduling. The algorithm was developed using a “teacher-student” machine learning approach and was trained on a total of 3,975 labeled NC-FET, including 3,432 training cycles and 543 test cycles. A second test group included 166 documented ovulation cycles (documented follicular rupture and LH surge in two consecutive days of ultrasound scans). The algorithm showed high ovulation detection accuracy in both tests’ groups particularly one day before and the day of ovulation (95.4% and 94.6% in the labeled test group and 95.5% and 95.3% in the documented test group, respectively). Most influential predictive features of the algorithm included LH levels, the estrogen/progesterone ratio, and leading follicle size during the monitored test days. The NTMA yielded 92.04% correct prediction 7 in identifying ovulation with an average of 3.1 tests per cycle. We propose an AI-based algorithm for the complete management of a NC-FET. The algorithm shows high accuracy in predicting the time of ovulation and therefore can serve as a useful decision support tool for clinicians in their daily practice. Prospective studies are warranted to validate these results.
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.