ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2015
To what extent does Anti-Mullerian Hormone contribute to a better prediction of live birth after IVF?
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2015. 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.
- Individualized embryo selection strategy developed by stacking machine learning model for better in vitro fertilization outcomes: an application study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Article
- Reduced Ovarian Function in Female Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Trying to Conceive.ACR open rheumatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe assessed the predictive value added by Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) to currently validated live birth (LB) prediction models.
methodsBased on recent data from our center, we compared the external validity of the Templeton Model (TM) and its recent improvement (TMA) to select our model of reference. The added predictive value of AMH was assessed in testing the likelihood ratio significance and the Net Reclassification Index (NRI). The surrogate utility of AMH was tested by conducting an exploratory stepwise logistic regression.
resultsBased on 715 cycles, the original TM had poor performances (auROC C = 0.61 [0.58, 0.66], improving by fitting TM to our data (C = 0.71[0.66, 0.75]. TMA fitting proved better (C = 0.76; 95 %CI: 0.71, 0.80) and was selected as model of reference. Adding AMH to TMA or TM had no effect on discrimination (C = 0.76; 95 %CI: 0.72, 0.80), the likelihood ratio test was significant (p = 0.023), but the NRI was not (6.7 %; p = 0.055). A stepwise exploratory logistic regression identified the effects of age, previous IVF resulting in LB, time trend and AMH, leading to a prediction model reduced to four predictors (C = 0.75 [0.70, 0.81]).
conclusionThe added predictive value of AMH is limited. A possible surrogate/simplifying effect of AMH was found in eliminating 9/13 predictors from the model of reference. We conclude that whereas AMH does not add significant predictive value to the existing model, it contributes to simplifying the equation to reliable, easy to collect, and available in all databases predictors: age, AMH, time trend and female previous fertility history.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.