ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Foundation model-powered deep learning of endometrial histology for predicting the cumulative live birth of an in vitro fertilization cycle.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective and reproducible assessment of endometrial receptivity is essential for optimizing in vitro fertilization (IVF) success, yet traditional histological dating suffers from observer variability. This study investigated whether deep learning of hematoxylin and eosin histology images could support cumulative live birth prediction in IVF. An end-to-end ResNet-18 was compared with a UNI2-h-based pipeline, using UNI2-h as a frozen feature extractor. Ten-fold cross-validation ensembles were developed from natural-cycle endometrial biopsies and evaluated in an internal held-out cohort with live birth outcomes. Additional phase-based evaluation was performed, which tested the performance in distinguishing LH + 7 versus non-LH + 7 phases. A luminal epithelium (LE)-focused design was also assessed to examine whether concentrating on maternal-embryo interface could improve fertility-oriented learning. The whole-slide ResNet-18 model performed well in internal outcome-based testing but near random in external phase-based testing. In contrast, the UNI2-h model with mean pooling and a multilayer perceptron classifier showed less divergent performance, with ensembled AUROCs of 0.74 ± 0.03 in internal outcome-based evaluation, and 0.90 ± 0.05 in external phase-based testing. Despite a smaller training set, LE-focused models retained comparable performance. In internal outcome-based testing, LE-focused ResNet-18 and UNI2-h models achieved AUROCs of 0.71 ± 0.03 and 0.74 ± 0.09 respectively. External phase-based testing yielded AUROCs of 0.80 ± 0.16 for ResNet-18, and 0.84 ± 0.06 for UNI2-h. Grad-CAM review of LE-focused ResNet-18 models showed attention commonly on LE-alone or mixed with adjacent stroma. In multimodal analyses, integrated models incorporating histology significantly outperformed the clinical metadata-only model. Integrated model's feature weighting showed dominant histology outputs, smaller contributions from estradiol and maternal age, and negligible contributions from progesterone, endometrial thickness, and BMI. These findings support histology-based AI for fertility-oriented endometrial assessment and highlight biologically informed design and repurposed foundation models as promising bases for clinically meaningful prediction.
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.