ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Development and validation of machine learning models for predicting operative duration in assisted reproductive technology procedures.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate prediction of operative duration is essential for efficient scheduling and resource allocation in surgical settings. In assisted reproductive technology (ART), procedures are brief yet highly time-sensitive, such that even small timing errors can propagate delays across tightly coupled workflows. This study aimed to develop and validate interpretable prediction models for operative duration in ART procedures using routinely available electronic medical record (EMR) data.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 763 operative cases from a high-volume fertility clinic in South Korea. Operative duration was defined using EMR-recorded start and end timestamps. Predictors included procedure type, patient age, reservation characteristics, attending physician, and day of surgery. We evaluated representative models from three commonly used predictive modeling paradigms-linear models, tree-based ensembles, and kernel/neural-network approaches-within a unified preprocessing and five-fold cross-validation framework. Model performance was assessed using standard error-based metrics and benchmarked against a commonly used moving-average heuristic.
resultsAmong the evaluated approaches, regularized linear models-particularly ridge and Bayesian ridge regression-demonstrated stable and interpretable performance. After back-transformation to the original time scale, these models achieved a mean absolute error of approximately 3.1 min, corresponding to a 7-8% reduction compared with the moving-average (MA5) baseline. Procedure type, patient age, and reservation type emerged as the most influential predictors of operative duration.
conclusionsUsing routinely available EMR data, interpretable linear models demonstrated consistent performance gains over a simple operational baseline. These results highlight the value of transparent and well-validated modeling strategies for operative duration prediction in high-throughput clinical settings.
trial registrationNot applicable (retrospective study using de-identified EMR data).
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.