ArticleScientific reports2024
Machine learning for predicting elective fertility preservation outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding fertility preservation among women of childbearing age in southern China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Computational algorithm based on health and lifestyle traits to categorize lifemetabotypes in the NUTRiMDEA cohort.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study applied machine-learning models to predict treatment outcomes of women undergoing elective fertility preservation. Two-hundred-fifty women who underwent elective fertility preservation at a tertiary center, 2019-2022 were included. Primary outcome was the number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved. Outcome class was based on oocyte count (OC): Low (≤ 8), Medium (9-15) or High (≥ 16). Machine-learning models and statistical regression were used to predict outcome class, first based on pre-treatment parameters, and then using post-treatment data from ovulation-triggering day. OC was 136 Low, 80 Medium, and 34 High. Random Forest Classifier (RFC) was the most accurate model (pre-treatment receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) was 77%, and post-treatment ROC AUC was 87%), followed by XGBoost Classifier (pre-treatment ROC AUC 74%, post-treatment ROC AUC 86%). The most important pre-treatment parameters for RFC were basal FSH (22.6%), basal LH (19.1%), AFC (18.2%), and basal estradiol (15.6%). Post-treatment parameters were estradiol levels on trigger-day (17.7%), basal FSH (11%), basal LH (9%), and AFC (8%). Machine-learning models trained with clinical data appear to predict fertility preservation treatment outcomes with relatively high accuracy.
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.