ArticleJournal of ovarian research2024
Preovulatory progesterone levels are the top indicator for ovulation prediction based on machine learning model evaluation: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 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.
- Prostaglandin-induced luteolysis and estrous expression in dairy heifers: applications of ovulation prediction based on automated activity monitoring system.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2025Article
- A valuable predictive model for optimizing the timing of oocyte retrieval: a retrospective analysis of oocyte retrieval time in 49,961 oocyte pickup (OPU) cycles.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurately predicting ovulation timing is critical for women undergoing natural cycle-frozen embryo transfer. However, the precise predicting of the ovulation timing remains challenging due to the lack of consensus among different clinics regarding the definition of this significant event.
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of preovulatory serum progesterone levels (P4) versus luteinizing hormone levels (LH) in predicting ovulation time using two machine learning models.
methods771 patients who underwent autologous natural cycle-frozen embryo transfer between January 2015 and February 2022 were recruited. Utilizing variables including follicle diameters, preovulatory serum levels of LH, E2, and P4, two machine learning models were constructed to predict the ovulation time, the importance of the variables in predicting ovulation timing was further ranked.
resultsTwo machine learning models have the capability to accurately predict the timing of ovulation, specifically within 72, 48, or 24 h. The overall accuracy rates of the validation dataset, as determined by the classification trees and random forest models, were found to be 78.83% and 85.28% respectively. Notably, when predicting ovulation within 24 h, the accuracy rate of P4 ≥ 0.65ng/ml exceeded 92%. Furthermore, it was important to consider LH or E2 levels in conjunction with P4 when assessing ovulation timing in cases where P4<0.65ng/ml.
conclusionsPreovulatory serum P4 levels are better predictors of ovulation timing than LH levels and could be used as an alternative in clinical settings, and the model we developed can be used to pinpoint the day of ovulation. Ongoing research and advancements in technology are anticipated to enhance and refine the ovulation method.
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.