ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2025
A Novel Machine Learning Model for Predicting Natural Conception Using Non-Laboratory-Based Data.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to predict the likelihood of natural conception among couples by using a machine learning (ML) approach based on sociodemographic and sexual health data. This marks a novel, non-invasive methodology for fertility prediction. This prospective study included 197 couples divided into two groups: 98 fertile couples (Group 1) who achieved natural conception within one year, and 99 infertile couples (Group 2) who were unable to conceive despite regular unprotected intercourse. Data were collected using a structured form capturing 63 variables from both partners. Using the Permutation Feature Importance method, 25 key predictors were selected. The variables included BMI, age, menstrual cycle characteristics, and varicocele presence. Five ML models were developed and their performance was evaluated using metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The XGB Classifier showed the highest performance among the models tested with an accuracy of 62.5% and a ROC-AUC of 0.580, indicating limited predictive capacity. The selected predictors encompassed a balance of medical, lifestyle, and reproductive factors for both partners, emphasizing the couple-based approach. Key factors included BMI, caffeine consumption, history of endometriosis, and exposure to chemical agents or heat. This study assessed the use of ML to predict natural conception using sociodemographic and health data The key predictors identified emphasize the importance of couple-based and lifestyle factors in predicting natural conception. However, the predictive capacity of the models was limited, highlighting the need for future studies with larger datasets and expanded predictors to improve accuracy and facilitate AI integration into fertility assessment.
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.