ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Construction of the machine learning-based live birth prediction models for the first in vitro fertilization pregnant women.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- FertilitY Predictor-a machine learning-based web tool for the prediction of assisted reproduction outcomes in men with Y chromosome microdeletions.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based model for predicting live birth outcomes in patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Review
- Pregnancy AI: Development and Internal Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Tool to Predict Live Births in ICSI and IVF Cycles Using Clinical Features and Embryo Images.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Ovarian tissue quality assessment and fertility preservation strategies enabled by multi-omics and artificial intelligence: current applications and clinical perspectives.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for predicting and preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes addressing bias and clinical translation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Multi-modal Artificial Intelligence of Embryo Grading and Pregnancy Prediction in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Review
- Predictive models for live birth outcomes following fresh embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technologies using machine learning.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Predictive model for live birth outcomes in single euploid frozen embryo transfers: a comparative analysis of logistic regression and machine learning approaches.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Machine learning center-specific models show improved IVF live birth predictions over US national registry-based model.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Identifying key predictive features for live birth rate in advanced maternal age patients undergoing single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Enhancing predictive models for egg donation: time to blastocyst hatching and machine learning insights.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Development of a machine learning-based prediction model for clinical pregnancy of intrauterine insemination in a large Chinese population.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Improving IVF Utilization with Patient-Centric Artificial Intelligence-Machine Learning (AI/ML): A Retrospective Multicenter Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Patient-Centric In Vitro Fertilization Prognostic Counseling Using Machine Learning for the Pragmatist.Seminars in reproductive medicine · 2024Review
- Development and Validation of a Combined Model Integrating Early Pregnancy Ultrasound Radiomics and Clinical Features to Predict Live Birth Following Single Vitrified-Warmed Blastocyst Transfer.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study was to conduct prediction models based on parameters before and after the first cycle, respectively, to predict live births in women who received fresh or frozen in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for the first time.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study population consisted of 1,857 women undergoing the IVF cycle from 2019 to 2021 at Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital. The data between 2019 and 2020 were completely randomly divided into a training set and a validation set (8:2). The data from 2021 was used as the testing set, and the bootstrap validation was carried out by extracting 30% of the data for 200 times on the total data set. In the training set, variables are divided into those before the first cycle and after the first cycle. Then, predictive factors before the first cycle and after the first cycle were screened. Based on the predictive factors, four supervised machine learning algorithms were respectively considered to build the predictive models: logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (LGBM). The performances of the prediction models were evaluated by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.
resultsTotally, 851 women (45.83%) had a live birth. The LGBM model showed a robust performance in predicting live birth before the first cycle, with AUC being 0.678 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.651 to 0.706] in the training set, 0.612 (95% CI: 0.553 to 0.670) in the validation set, 0.634 (95% CI: 0.511 to 0.758) in the testing set, and 0.670 (95% CI: 0.626 to 0.715) in the bootstrap validation. The AUC value in the training set, validation set, testing set, and bootstrap of LGBM to predict live birth after the first cycle was 0.841 (95% CI: 0.821 to 0.861), 0.816 (95% CI: 0.773 to 0.859), 0.835 (95% CI: 0.743 to 0.926), and 0.839 (95% CI: 0.806 to 0.871), respectively.
conclusionThe LGBM model based on the predictive factors before and after the first cycle for live birth in women showed a good predictive performance. Therefore, it may assist fertility specialists and patients to adjust the appropriate treatment strategy.
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.