ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
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.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation readiness of artificial intelligence inFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the predictive performance of a convolutional neural network for analyzing electronic medical records in assisted reproductive therapy and to compare its accuracy and interpretability with traditional machine learning models. The study also explores the feasibility of deploying such models in resource-limited clinical settings. Design: Retrospective cohort study based on EMR data using five models: CNN, Naïve Bayes, Random Forest, Decision Tree, and Feedforward Neural Network. Feature importance and model interpretability were evaluated using SHAP. Setting: First Hospital of Zhengzhou University. Population: 48,514 fresh IVF cycles from August 2009 to May 2018. Methods: Preprocessed EMR data were used to train and evaluate five classification models predicting live birth outcomes. Stratified 5-fold cross-validation was performed for robust performance estimation. ROC curves and AUC values were used for comparative evaluation. Main Outcome Measure: Live birth. Results: The CNN model achieved an accuracy of 0.9394 ± 0.0013, AUC of 0.8899 ± 0.0032, precision of 0.9348 ± 0.0018, recall of 0.9993 ± 0.0012, and F1 score of 0.9660 ± 0.0007. Its performance was comparable to Random Forest (accuracy: 0.9406 ± 0.0017, AUC: 0.9734 ± 0.0012), and superior to Decision Tree, Naïve Bayes, and Feedforward Neural Network in recall and robustness. CNN demonstrated stable convergence during training, and SHAP-based interpretation highlighted maternal age, BMI, antral follicle count, and gonadotropin dosage as the top predictors for live birth outcome. Conclusions: With appropriate input transformation, CNNs can effectively model structured EMR data and offer predictive performance comparable to ensemble methods. Their scalability, high sensitivity, and interpretability make CNNs promising candidates for integration into clinical workflows, particularly in environments with limited computational resources.
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.