ArticleBMC medicine2026
Enhanced predictive performance of artificial intelligence in individualized ovarian stimulation of in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver 2.5 million cycles in vitro fertilization (IVF) are conducted annually, and numbers are expected to rise with the aging population. The controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) process, key to IVF success, is inherently complex. Given advances in artificial intelligence (AI), this study investigated whether a series of AI models can outperform traditional clinical practices in predictive accuracy and COS optimization.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed first-cycle ovarian stimulation patients (Oct 2017-Dec 2020) and was validated using an independent cohort (Jan 2018-Jan 2022). Six AI algorithms and 73 variables were screened. A four-submodel strategy included risk prediction models for low and hyper ovarian response (LORRM, HORRM) and strategy deployment models (LORSM, HORSM) for managing critical COS components. Feature importance was assessed using Shapley additive explanations, with sensitivity analyses performed for robustness. The ability to propose effective COS strategies was also retrospectively assessed.
resultsA four-submodel system prototype using extreme gradient boosting trees was developed. All submodels showed superior discrimination compared to conventional ovarian reserve markers (AUC, 95% CI: LORSM, 0.95 [0.94-0.96]; LORRM, 0.93 [0.92-0.94]; HORSM, 0.90 [0.88-0.91]; HORRM, 0.89 [0.87-0.91]. DeLong P < 0.001 for all). They demonstrated adequate calibration (Brier scores of four submodels ranged from 0.064 to 0.072), promising performance in external validation (AUCs ranging from 0.84 to 0.88) and sensitivity analyses. Among COS components, COS protocol and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) use had the largest impact on low and hyper response risks, respectively, with FSH starting dose ranking third. Diastolic blood pressure, alanine aminotransferase, and white blood cell count predicted low response, while basal luteinizing hormone (LH) levels and platelet count were key for hyper response. Several were newly identified potential biomarkers. LORSM and HORSM identified effective strategies with precision of 95.5% (95% CI, 94.6-96.4%) and 98.4% (95% CI, 98.0-98.9%), respectively.
conclusionsThe AI-based system demonstrated superior detection of abnormal ovarian responses and effective individualized COS design compared to conventional clinical practice while maintaining transparency. The system identified potential biomarkers beyond conventional ovarian reserve markers and offered new insights for optimizing IVF, showing promise for advancing personalized reproductive medicine.
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.