ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Multi-Omics Analysis and Machine Learning Prediction Model for Pregnancy Outcomes After Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection-
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNMT/TET Imbalance and Network-Level DNA Methylation Remodeling in Ovarian Aging: Mechanistic Perspectives.Biology · 2026Review
- Advances in multi-omics and aging clock research for female reproductive health and aging.MedScience · 2026Review
- The Influencing Factors and Predictive Algorithm of Pregnancy Outcomes in IVF/ICSI-ET Patients.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Current progress and open challenges for applying artificial intelligence across thePatterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- The Future Is Coming: Artificial Intelligence in the Treatment of Infertility Could Improve Assisted Reproduction Outcomes-The Value of Regulatory Frameworks.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To explore the methylation profiles in cumulus cells (CCs) of women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection- Methods: Methylation data were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database, and differentially methylated genes (DMGs) were subjected to gene set analyses. Support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and logistic regression (LR) were used to establish the prediction model, and microarray data from GEO was analyzed to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with the dichotomous outcomes of clinical pregnancy (pregnant vs. non-pregnant). Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis provided multi-dimensional validation for selected DMGs. Results: A total of 338 differentially methylated CpG sites associated with 146 unique genes across the genome were identified. Among the identified pathways, the prominent ones were involved in the regulation of cell growth and oocyte development (hsa04340, hsa04012, hsa04914, hsa04614, hsa04913, hsa04020, and hsa00510). The area under the curve (AUC) of machine learning classifiers was 0.94 (SVM) vs. 0.88 (RF) vs. 0.97 (LR). 196 DEGs were found in transcriptional microarray. Mapped genes were selected through overlapping enriched pathways in transcriptional profiles and methylated data of CCs, predictive of successful pregnancy. Conclusions: Methylated profiles of CCs were significantly different between women receiving ICSI-IVF procedures that conceived successfully and those that did not conceive. Machine learning approaches are powerful tools that may provide crucial information for prognostic assessment. Pathway analysis may be another way in multiomics analysis of cumulus cells.
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.