ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Development and internal validation of a post-retrieval machine learning models for OHSS risk stratification in assisted reproductive technology: an exploratory study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the feasibility of developing and internal validating machine learning (ML) models for post-retrieval ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risk stratification in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). Methods: In this exploratory, single-center, retrospective study, three ML models were established using clinical and laboratory data from infertile patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) at Jinxin Xinan Women & Children Hospital between 2020 and 2023. The models were evaluated comprehensively using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. Model interpretability was achieved using the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method to identify key predictors and clarify the basis of model decisions. Results: A total of 500 infertility patients were enrolled, including 40 diagnosed with OHSS. Participants were randomly divided into a training set (n = 350) and a test set (n = 150). Among the three ML models developed, the RandomForest model demonstrated the best discriminatory performance in the test set, achieving an accuracy of 0.79, sensitivity of 0.75, specificity of 0.80, F1 score of 0.37, and an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68-0.95). The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and SHAP analysis identified number of oocytes retrieved, age, P levels on the trigger day, and ratio of baseline LH/FSH as the most influential predictors in the model. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that the ML-based approach shows exploratory promise for OHSS risk stratification in infertility patients undergoing ART. By integrating demographic and clinical variables, the model - particularly the Random Forest algorithm - may serve as hypothesis-generating framework for informing post-retrieval risk stratification, ultimately mitigating the risk of OHSS. Combining ML with SHAP provided explicit, individualized risk interpretation that may help clinicians intuitively understand the impact of key predictive features. However, this interpretability does not imply validated clinical utility. These findings are exploratory and hypothesis-generating. They require rigorous external validation in larger, multi-center prospective studies before clinical implementation.
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.