Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35508641›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Internal validation and comparison of predictive models to determine success rate of infertility treatments: a retrospective study of 2485 cycles.

Ameneh Mehrjerd, Hassan Rezaei, Saeid Eslami, Mariam Begum Ratna, Nayyere Khadem Ghaebi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ameneh MehrjerdDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.
Hassan RezaeiDepartment of Computer Science, Faculty of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.
Saeid EslamiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.eslami.h@gmail.com.
Mariam Begum RatnaDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Nayyere Khadem GhaebiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
University of Sistan and Baluchestan · IRAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLMashhad University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infertility is a significant health problem and assisted reproductive technologies to treat infertility. Despite all efforts, the success rate of these methods is still low. Also, each of these methods has side effects and costs. Therefore, accurate prediction of treatment success rate is a clinical challenge. This retrospective study aimed to internally validate and compare various machine learning models for predicting the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) of infertility treatment. For this purpose, data from 1931 patients consisting of in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) (733) and intra uterine insemination (IUI) (1196) treatments were included. Also, no egg or sperm donation data were used. The performance of machine learning algorithms to predict clinical pregnancy were expressed in terms of accuracy, recall, F-score, positive predictive value (PPV), brier score (BS), Matthew correlation coefficient (MCC), and receiver operating characteristic. The significance of the features with CPR and AUCs was evaluated by Student's t test and DeLong's algorithm. Random forest (RF) model had the highest accuracy in the IVF/ICSI treatment. The sensitivity, F1 score, PPV, and MCC of the RF model were 0.76, 0.73, 0.80, and 0.5, respectively. These values for IUI treatment were 0.84, 0.80, 0.82, and 0.34, respectively. The BS was 0.13 and 0.15 for IVF/ICS and IUI, respectively. In addition, the estimated AUCs of the RF model for IVF/ICS and IUI were 0.73 and 0.7, respectively. Some essential features were obtained based on RF ranking for the two datasets, including age, follicle stimulation hormone, endometrial thickness, and infertility duration. The results showed a strong relationship between clinical pregnancy and a woman's age. Also, endometrial thickness and the number of follicles decreased with increasing female age in both treatments.

Indexed as

InfertilityFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesSperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic

Identifiers

PMID35508641
PMCPMC9068696
OpenAlexW4225426942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.