ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
A machine learning-assisted approach to explain key determinants for achieving live birth in autologous ICSI cycles.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCan an explainable machine learning-assisted approach uncover data and prediction trends to select the most transparent model for live birth in autologous ICSI cycles?
designA retrospective multicenter cohort study (January 2011-December 2023) included 8,066 patients. Only single autologous ICSI cycles using fresh oocytes and donor or patient sperm (fresh or frozen) were included. A total of 47 pre-treatment and in-cycle variables from electronic medical records were evaluated as potential predictors. Five machine learning (ML) algorithms were applied to select the most predictive variables of live birth in a completed cycle. Using an explainability approach based on SHAP values, the decision-making processes of the algorithms were explored.
resultsA data-driven approach allowed to optimize five ML models for maximum performance, achieving a mean AUC of 88.9 ± 0.5%, balanced accuracy of 80.3 ± 0.5%, precision of 89.1 ± 4.1%, sensitivity of 66.1 ± 3.3% and average F1-score of 0.757 ± 0.009. SHAP values and multicollinearity analysis across all five algorithms selected 16 clinically relevant variables as important predictors of live birth without compromising model performance. An explainable ML approach was able to uncover the decision-making process of the models and reveal that decision tree-based models, particularly the gradient boosting classifier, capture the non-linear distribution of SHAP importance values of the 16 predictive variables, while reflecting current clinical knowledge.
conclusionsThe use of an explainable ML-assisted approach in the prediction of live birth in ART cycles offers the opportunity to uncover underlying data trends that can help select the best model for transparent and more informed patient care by ART professionals.
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.