ArticlePloS one2024
Comparative study of machine learning approaches integrated with genetic algorithm for IVF success prediction.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Multi-modal Artificial Intelligence of Embryo Grading and Pregnancy Prediction in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Breaking barriers in male infertility: the power of artificial intelligence-driven solutions.Frontiers in urology · 2026Review
- Unveiling the potential of artificial intelligence in revolutionizing disease diagnosis and prediction: a comprehensive review of machine learning and deep learning approaches.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of convolutional neural networks and traditional machine learning models for IVF live birth prediction: a retrospective analysis of 48514 IVF cycles and an evaluation of deployment feasibility in resource-constrained settings.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Predicting IVF outcomes using a logistic regression-ABC hybrid model: A proof-of-concept study on supplement associations.PloS one · 2025Article
- Design and analysis of a telemonitoring system for high-risk pregnant women in need of special care or attention.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIVF is a widely-used assisted reproductive technology with a consistent success rate of around 30%, and improving this rate is crucial due to emotional, financial, and health-related implications for infertile couples. This study aimed to develop a model for predicting IVF outcome by comparing five machine-learning techniques.
methodThe research approached five prominent machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest, Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees (RPART), and AdaBoost, in the context of IVF success prediction. The study also incorporated GA as a feature selection method to enhance the predictive models' robustness.
resultsFindings demonstrate that AdaBoost, particularly when combined with GA feature selection, achieved the highest accuracy rate of 89.8%. Using GA, Random Forest also demonstrated strong performance, achieving an accuracy rate of 87.4%. Genetic Algorithm significantly improved the performance of all classifiers, emphasizing the importance of feature selection. Ten crucial features, including female age, AMH, endometrial thickness, sperm count, and various indicators of oocyte and embryo quality, were identified as key determinants of IVF success.
conclusionThese findings underscore the potential of machine learning and feature selection techniques to assist IVF clinicians in providing more accurate predictions, enabling tailored treatment plans for each patient. Future research and validation can further enhance the practicality and reliability of these predictive models in clinical IVF practice.
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.