Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40620368›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2025

Real-world use of an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support tool for ovarian stimulation.

Cameron J Bixby, Bradley Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cameron J BixbyHenry Ford Providence Hospital, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Southfield, Michigan.
Bradley MillerReproductive Medicine Associates of Michigan, Reproductive Endocrinology, Troy, Michigan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ARTArtificial intelligencemachine learningovarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID40620368
PMCPMC12223591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.