ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Influencing factors of fertilization failure during
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify independent risk factors for fertilization failure (FF) during conventional Methods: This retrospective study included 2,474 IVF cycles (173 FF cycles with fertilization rate <30% and 2,301 normal fertilization cycles with rate ≥30%) at a single center (2018-2023). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to screen independent risk factors for FF. A combined predictive model was constructed using logistic binary regression, and its discriminative ability was assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: Multivariate analysis identified four independent risk factors for FF: high proportion of primary infertility (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.48-3.25), low proportion of tubal factor (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86), low normal sperm morphology rate (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73-0.91), and low sperm concentration after treatment (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97). The combined predictive model achieved an AUC of 74.6% (95% CI: 70.3%-78.9%), with an optimal cutoff of 0.185 (sensitivity 68.2%, specificity 71.5%). Conclusion: Primary infertility, absence of tubal factor, low normal sperm morphology, and low post-treatment sperm concentration are independent predictors of FF. This combined prediction model shows moderate discriminative power for fertilization failure risk stratification. However, its low positive predictive value (15.1%) restricts accurate identification of high-risk IVF patients. The model can only be used as an auxiliary counseling tool rather than a definitive reference for choosing conventional IVF or ICSI; prospective multicenter external validation is required before clinical application.
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.