ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2026
A robust clinical-laboratory AI model for predicting cumulative live birth per oocyte retrieval as a benchmark for evaluating emerging embryo selection technologies.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of a clinical-laboratory artificial intelligence (AI) model for predicting cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval and to assess its utility as a benchmark for emerging embryo selection technologies.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 89 completed ICSI cycles (2023-2024) from a single center. The multivariable AI model, based on hierarchical logis-tic regression, integrates female age with non-linear pe-nalization; serum AMH; number of metaphase II oocytes; fertilization rate; blastocyst formation rate and quality; presence of male factor infertility; and distinct probability coefficients for fresh and frozen embryo transfers. CLBR was calculated per oocyte retrieval, incorporating both fresh and frozen embryo transfers, representing the most clinically meaningful outcome for patients. Model discrim-ination was assessed using receiver operating character-istic (ROC) curves, with area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (DeLong's method). Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined at a 50% prob-ability threshold.
resultsMean patient age was 37.2±4.3 years, AMH 2.86±2.1 ng/mL, and number of MII oocytes 7.8±3.2, fer-tilization rate averaged 79±18%, blastocyst formation rate 58±24%, mean blastocyst quality score 2.1±0.9, fresh blastocysts transferred 1.8±0.9, and cryopreserved blasto-cysts 2.1±2.0. Male factor infertility was present in 34% of cycles. The model achieved an AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.95). At the 50% threshold, balanced accuracy was 82%, sensitivity 82.2%, and specificity 81.8%. The confusion ma-trix revealed 7 false positives and 5 false negatives.
conclusionThis clinical-laboratory AI model provides accurate prediction of cumulative live birth per oocyte re-trieval and establishes a validated benchmark for critical-ly evaluating emerging embryo selection technologies. Its use may help ensure that technological innovations are assessed against biologically grounded outcomes before widespread clinical adoption.
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.