ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Intrauterine insemination timing models-LH can only take you so far.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
research questionCan an optimal LH threshold algorithm accurately predict timing of ovulation for natural cycle-intrauterine insemination (NC-IUI)?
designA retrospective cohort study (2018-2022) including 2467 natural cycles. Ovulation timing for these cycles was determined using a previously developed AI model. Two LH thresholds, low and high, were determined in the LH algorithm. Being below the low threshold meant that ovulation is likely to occur in ≥ 4 days, suggesting another daily blood test. Between the two thresholds meant that ovulation was likely in 2-3 days, suggesting IUI the next day. Above the high threshold meant that ovulation will likely occur tomorrow, suggesting performing IUI on the same day.
resultsThe optimal LH model with a high threshold of 40 mIU/ml and a low threshold of 11 mIU/ml succeeded in correctly predicting timing for IUI (day - 1, - 2 relative to ovulation) in 75.4% (95%CI 75.3-75.4). In 23.1% (95%CI 23.0-23.2), the algorithm predicted "error," suggesting performing insemination when in fact it would have been performed on a non-optimal day (0 or - 3). A previously described 3-hormone-based (LH, estradiol, progesterone) AI model performed significantly better in all parameters (93.6% success rate, 4.3 "error" rate).
conclusionsAn LH threshold model, representing common practice, evaluating all possible high and low LH threshold combinations, was successful in accurately scheduling timing for IUI in only 75% of cases. Integrating all three hormones as performed in the AI model may have an advantage in accurately predicting the optimal time for IUI, over the use of LH only.
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.