ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Live-Birth Prediction of Natural-Cycle
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Development and external validation of a three-stage model to predict live birth after fresh IVF/ICSI embryo transfer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Establishment and application of a prediction model for blastocyst formation rate and delivery outcome in human assisted reproductive technology.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Article
- Current progress and open challenges for applying artificial intelligence across thePatterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Follicular sphericity based on three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound algorithms predicts ovarian responsiveness to in vitro fertilization.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Natural-cycle Design and Methods: The dataset contained 57,558 anonymized register patient records undergoing NC-IVF cycles from 2005 to 2016 filtered from 7bsp;60,732 records in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) data. We selected matching records and features through data filtering and feature selection methods. Two groups of twelve machine learning models were trained and tested. Eight metrics, e.g., F1 score, Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), etc., were computed to evaluate the performance of each model. Results: Two groups of twelve models were trained and tested. The artificial neural network (ANN) model performed the best in the machine learning group (F1 score, 70.87%; MCC, 50.37%; and AUC score, 0.7939). The LogitBoost model obtained the best scores in the ensemble learning group (F1 score, 70.57%; MCC, 50.75%; and AUC score, 0.7907). After the comparison between the two models, the LogitBoost model was recognized as an optimal one. Conclusion: In this study, NC-IVF-related datasets were extracted from the HFEA data, and a machine learning-based prediction model was successfully constructed through this largest NC-IVF dataset currently. This model is universal and stable, which can help clinicians predict the live-birth success rate of NC-IVF in advance before developing IVF treatment strategies and then choose the best benefit treatment strategy according to the patients' wishes. As "use less stimulation and back to natural condition" becomes more and more popular, this model is more meaningful in the decision-making assistance system for IVF.
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.