ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Interpretable, internally validated prognostic modelling of cumulative clinical pregnancy in women with diminished ovarian reserve.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and internally validate an interpretable prognostic model for cumulative clinical pregnancy in women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), and to explore, as a hypothesis-generating secondary aim, whether protocol-associated pregnancy rates differ across model-defined baseline-prognosis risk strata.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingA single tertiary reproductive medicine center. PATIENTS: 1,251 oocyte-retrieval cycles in women with DOR (AMH ≤ 1.1 ng/mL) at a single tertiary centre, January 2019-July 2024. Each record is one retrieval cycle; no patient identifier was available.
methodsFrom 37 candidate predictors, random-forest selection (training set only) retained eight; six algorithms were compared for discrimination (AUC, DeLong), calibration (slope, intercept, Brier) and clinical utility (decision-curve analysis), with SHAP for interpretability. Discrimination was further assessed by out-of-time validation (train ≤2022, test 2023-2024). Within model-defined risk strata, protocols were compared (chi-square/Fisher; bootstrap CIs; FDR and Bonferroni correction), with a pre-treatment-variable-only sensitivity analysis.
resultsA parsimonious logistic regression gave the highest test AUC (0.739, 95% CI 0.688-0.790; Brier 0.200), not significantly better than more complex algorithms (DeLong p>0.10), and held up on out-of-time validation (AUC 0.726). The five most influential predictors (SHAP) were embryo quality, female age, male age, estradiol and AMH. In the exploratory analysis, low-probability cycles showed no protocol differences; among high-probability cycles only one association survived correction (long-acting GnRH-agonist fresh transfer vs HRT frozen transfer; absolute difference +48%, 95% CI 28-67%; FDR p=0.002), persisting in the baseline-only analysis.
conclusionsIn women with DOR, an interpretable logistic-regression model provided moderate, internally and temporally validated discrimination for cumulative clinical pregnancy at the pre-transfer decision point, though calibration drifted over time and warrants recalibration before use. The single protocol-related association is hypothesis-generating only. The model is best regarded as a pre-transfer prognostic counselling tool, not a basis for protocol selection, and requires prospective external validation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.