ArticleMedicine2022
Clinical pregnancy outcomes prediction in vitro fertilization women based on random forest prediction model: A nested case-control study.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- The Influencing Factors and Predictive Algorithm of Pregnancy Outcomes in IVF/ICSI-ET Patients.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of solution focused approach on women aged 35 or over with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: A quasi-experimental trial.PloS one · 2025Article
- Patient-Centric In Vitro Fertilization Prognostic Counseling Using Machine Learning for the Pragmatist.Seminars in reproductive medicine · 2024Review
- Comparative study of machine learning approaches integrated with genetic algorithm for IVF success prediction.PloS one · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to analyze the risk factors influencing the in vitro fertilization embryo transfer (IVF-ET) pregnancy and to construct a prediction model for clinical pregnancy outcome in patients receiving IVF-ET based on the predictors. In this nested case-control study, the data of 369 women receiving IVF-ET were enrolled. Univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the potential predictors. Ten-fold cross validation method was used to validate the random forest model for predicting the clinical pregnancy. The receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn to evaluate the prediction ability of the model. The importance of variables was shown according to Mean Decrease Gini. The data delineated that age (odds ratio [OR]= 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.036-1.156, P = .0010), body mass index (BMI) (OR = 1.094, 95%CI: 1.021-1.176, P = .012), 3 cycles (OR = 0.144, 95%CI: 0.028-0.534, P = .008), hematocrit (HCT) (OR = 0.865, 95% CI: 0.791-0.943, P = .001), luteinizing hormone (LH) (OR = 0.678, 95%CI: 0.549-0.823, P < .001), progesterone (P) (OR = 2.126, 95%CI: 1.112-4.141, P = .024), endometrial thickness (OR = 0.132, 95%CI: 0.034-0.496, P = .003) and FSH (OR = 1.151, 95%CI: 1.043-1.275, P = .006) were predictors associated with the clinical pregnancy outcome of patients receiving IVF-ET. The results might provide a novel method to identify patients receiving IVF-ET with a high risk of poor pregnancy outcomes and provide interventions in those patients to prevent the occurrence of poor pregnancy outcomes.
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.