ArticleScientific reports2024
Improved clinical pregnancy rates in natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles with machine learning ovulation prediction: insights from a retrospective cohort study.
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.
- Treatment management algorithm for natural frozen embryo transfer cycles using a real-time ovulation prediction machine learning model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to develop physician support software for determining ovulation time and assess its impact on pregnancy outcomes in natural cycle frozen embryo transfers (NC-FET). To develop, assess, and validate an ovulation prediction model, three datasets were used: REI Ovulation Determination dataset (500 cycles) split into training (309), validation (90), and test (101) sets; the Documented Ovulation dataset (101 cycles) with confirmed ovulation (documented follicular rupture and LH surge); and the Clinical Pregnancy Rates dataset (515 NC-FET cycles), categorized into "Matched" and "Mismatched" based on alignment with the model's ovulation determination. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between the groups. The ovulation prediction model exhibited 93.85% and 92.89% matching rates with the REI Ovulation Determination and Documented Ovulation datasets, respectively. In the Clinical Pregnancy Rates dataset, the Matched group (282 cycles) showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates than the Mismatched group (34.6% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.04) and similar results for patients under 37 (41.1% vs. 30.7%, p = 0.04). Logistic regression indicated lower pregnancy rates in Mismatched cases (odds ratio 0.67 for the general population, 0.63 for patients under 37). In conclusion, we introduce a highly accurate AI ovulation prediction model. Treatment cycles aligning with the model's recommendations had significantly increased clinical pregnancy rates.
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.