ArticleScientific reports2026
Machine learning prediction of live birth after IVF using the morphological uterus sonographic assessment group features of adenomyosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
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
Predicting live birth after the first IVF/ICSI treatment is challenging, as many factors may interact to affect IVF/ICSI outcomes. Adenomyosis is one factor that impacts live birth rates. Machine learning algorithms have been shown valuable for detecting complex dependencies and predicting outcomes in different clinical settings. We aimed to develop a prediction model for live birth after IVF/ICSI treatment, using the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algoritm and incorporating the revised Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group features of adenomyosis. We used a machine learning model based on data from 1037 women undergoing their first IVF/ICSI treatment between January 2019 and October 2022. The importance of each variable on the model was illustrated with the Shapley additive explanations algorithm (SHAP) variable importance. The prediction model was presented with the area under receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC). The proposed XGBoost model had a test AUC of 0.66 and accuracy of 0.59. S-AMH was the best variable for predicting live birth with a mean SHAP of 0.21, followed by a regular junctional zone as the best ultrasonographic variable, mean SHAP 0.13. The predictive ability of MUSA features in relation to live birth was limited. Additional variables should be included in future prediction models.
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.