ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2024
Artificial Intelligence, Clinical Decision Support Algorithms, Mathematical Models, Calculators Applications in Infertility: Systematic Review and Hands-On Digital Applications.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Reproductive Bioengineering: Integrating Fertility Diagnostics, Organ-on-Chip Systems, Cryobiology and Epigenetic Safety for Precision Reproductive Medicine.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in infertility treatment: Applications, challenges, and future directions: A narrative review.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Review
- Implementation readiness of artificial intelligence inFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Presenting a conceptual model for decision support systems in infertility: A developmental study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2025Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Perinatal Care Pathways: A Scoping Review of Reviews of Applications, Outcomes, and Equity.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- FERTILITY CARE IN LOW- AND MIDDLE- INCOME COUNTRIES: The future use of AI to improve accessibility of assisted reproductive technology in low- and middle-income countries.Reproduction & fertility · 2025Review
- The future of embryo engineering and fertility research in interdisciplinary collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to identify clinical decision support algorithms (CDSAs) proposed for assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) and to evaluate their effectiveness in improving ART cycles at every stage vs traditional methods, thereby providing an evidence-based guidance for their use in ART practice. A literature search on PubMed and Embase of articles published between 1 January 2013 and 31 January 2024 was performed to identify relevant articles. Prospective and retrospective studies in English on the use of CDSA for ART were included. Out of 1746 articles screened, 116 met the inclusion criteria. The selected articles were categorized into 3 areas: prognosis and patient counseling, clinical management, and embryo assessment. After screening, 11 CDSAs were identified as potentially valuable for clinical management and laboratory practices. Our findings highlight the potential of automated decision aids to improve in vitro fertilization outcomes. However, the main limitation of this review was the lack of standardization in validation methods across studies. Further validation and clinical trials are needed to establish the effectiveness of these tools in the clinical setting.
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.