ArticlePloS one2025
Predicting IVF live -birth probability using time-lapse data: Implications of including or excluding age in a day 2 embryo transfer model.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The primary objective of this study was to develop predictive models for the likelihood of live births following In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatment, based on a retrospective analysis of time-lapse data from Day 2 embryo transfers at Klinikk Hausken, Norway. This analysis encompassed 1,506 IVF treatment cycles, which included 865 single and 641 double embryo transfer cycles, totalling 2,147 embryos transferred. The model covariates included nucleation error, timing of two-cell stage (t2) and duration between t2 and the three-cell stage (t3). The predictive ability was assessed using Area Under Curve (AUC). Generalised Additive Mixed Models (GAMM) were utilised to address clustering effects from Single Embryo Transfers (SET) and Double Embryo Transfers (DETs), as well as the non-linear effects of female age and t2 timings. A stratification of age and model scores demonstrated the impact of incorporating age into the model. The" Base Model, not incorporating age, achieved an AUC of 0.641, while the "Age Model", using maternal age, significantly enhanced AUC to 0.745, as estimated through bootstrap analysis. However, when the Age Model was subjected to average ages across three respective age intervals, the AUC values were comparable to the Base Model, rather than the original Age Model scores. Adjusting the Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) timing by ± 2 hours, purely as a theoretical exercise, has minimal impacts on model predictions. This highlights the value of including t2 despite fertilisation timing variations between ICSI and IVF. The Age Model did not show superiority in predicting live birth within single treatment cohorts. However, given its distinct AUC values for broader age ranges, the Age Model can serve as a counselling tool on live-birth probabilities. With further validation, we suggest only using the Age Model for general counselling, while the Base Model is preferable for the embryo selection decision support.
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.