ArticleF&S reports2025
Real-world use of an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support tool for ovarian stimulation.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in ovarian pathophysiology and management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Clinical Trials for Central Nervous System Injuries.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Decision Support Models to Optimize Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation: A Scoping Review.Clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in ovarian cancer: transforming detection, treatment, and prevention.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Commentary on "Real-world use of an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support tool for ovarian stimulation".F&S reports · 2025Article
- To dose or to let artificial intelligence dose: that is the question!F&S reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To understand how treatment decisions and patient outcomes change with physician utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) to help determine follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose and trigger injection timing during ovarian stimulation. Design: Retrospective cohort study with historical controls. Subjects: Patients undergoing ovarian stimulation by multiple physicians at one in vitro fertilization clinic in the United States. Exposure: A total of 292 patients were treated between December 2022 and December 2023 with adjunctive clinician use of AI to help select starting dose of FSH and timing of the trigger injection. These were matched to 292 historical control patients treated between May 2019 and May 2022 by the same physicians without AI. Main Outcome Measures: The primary endpoints were the starting FSH dose, total FSH dose, and number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes retrieved at the end of stimulation. Results: The use of AI did not introduce any adverse events. After patient matching, there were no statistically significant differences in age, body mass index, antimüllerian hormone, or antral follicle count between the treatment and control groups. Comparing the treatment arm with the control arm, the average number of MII oocytes was 11.17 vs. 11.25, the average starting FSH dose was 397.09 IU vs. 443.84 IU, and the average total FSH dose was 4,181.77 IU vs. 4,654.71 IU. Conclusion: Physician use of AI helped significantly reduce the starting and total FSH doses prescribed to patients without adversely affecting MII outcomes, indicating the potential use of AI in lowering in vitro fertilization costs to patients.
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.