Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791536
Patient-Centric In Vitro Fertilization Prognostic Counseling Using Machine Learning for the Pragmatist
Funding Each organization funded its own participation.Abstract
Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) has become an extremely effective treatment option for infertility, there is significant underutilization of IVF by patients who could benefit from such treatment. In order for patients to choose to consider IVF treatment when appropriate, it is critical for them to be provided with an accurate, understandable IVF prognosis. Machine learning (ML) can meet the challenge of personalized prognostication based on data available prior to treatment. The development, validation, and deployment of ML prognostic models and related patient counseling report delivery require specialized human and platform expertise. This review article takes a pragmatic approach to review relevant reports of IVF prognostic models and draws from extensive experience meeting patients' and providers' needs with the development of data and model pipelines to implement validated ML models at scale, at the point-of-care. Requirements of using ML-based IVF prognostics at point-of-care will be considered alongside clinical ML implementation factors critical for success. Finally, we discuss health, social, and economic objectives that may be achieved by leveraging combined human expertise and ML prognostics to expand fertility care access and advance health and social good.
Keywords
prognostic counseling - live birth probability - artificial intelligence - machine learning - precision medicineAuthorship Contribution Statement
M.W.M.Y.: writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, conceptualization; J.J.: writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, conceptualization; E.T.N., T.S., M.M.: writing—review and editing.
Attestation Statement
Not applicable.
Data Sharing Statement
Not applicable.
Publication History
Article published online:
08 October 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Haug CJ, Drazen JM. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical medicine, 2023. N Engl J Med 2023; 388 (13) 1201-1208
- 2 Jenkins J, van der Poel S, Krüssel J. et al. Empathetic application of machine learning may address appropriate utilization of ART. Reprod Biomed Online 2020; 41 (04) 573-577
- 3 Sample patient counseling report. Accessed July 18, 2024 at: https://www.univfy.com/research/sample-preivf-report
- 4 Radanliev P, Santos O, Brandon-Jones A, Joinson A. Ethics and responsible AI deployment. Front Artif Intell 2024; 7: 1377011
- 5 Drabiak K, Kyzer S, Nemov V, El Naqa I. AI and machine learning ethics, law, diversity, and global impact. Br J Radiol 2023; 96 (1150) 20220934
- 6 World Health Organization (WHO). 2023 1 in 6 people globally affected by infertility: WHO. Accessed on April 29, 2023 at: https://www.who.int/news/item/04-04-2023-1-in-6-people-globally-affected-by-infertility
- 7 Infertility and IVF Access in the United States. A Human Rights-Based Policy Approach. Center for Reproductive Rights. Accessed June 2, 2024 at: https://reproductiverights.org/our-issues/assisted-reproduction/
- 8 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Definition of Infertility: A Committee Opinion. 2023 . Accessed June 2, 2024 at: https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/denitions-of-infertility/
- 9 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). 2022 More than 73 thousand babies born from assisted reproductive technology cycles done in 2020. Accessed April 29, 2023 at: https://www.sart.org/news-and-publications/news-and-research/press-releases-and-bulletins/more-than-73-thousand-babies-born-from-assisted-reproductive-technology-cycles-done-in-2020/
- 10 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). ART Factsheet. Accessed July 17, 2024 at: https://www.eshre.eu/Press-Room/Resources
- 11 International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART). 2018. ICMART Preliminary World Report. 2018 . Accessed April 29, 2023 at: https://www.icmartivf.org/reports-publications/ - articles.
- 12 Family Equality. 2020 Facts about LGBTQ+ Families - Fact Sheet. Accessed June 2, 2024 at: https://www.familyequality.org/resources/facts-about-lgbtq-families/
- 13 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2022 Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth. Impaired Fecundity and Infertility Sections. Accessed April 29, 2023 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/i-keystat.htm
- 14 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2021; 116 (01) 54-63
- 15 Klitzman R. How much is a child worth? Providers' and patients' views and responses concerning ethical and policy challenges in paying for ART. PLoS One 2017; 12 (02) e0171939
- 16 Rich CW, Domar AD. Addressing the emotional barriers to access to reproductive care. Fertil Steril 2016; 105 (05) 1124-1127
- 17 Skedgel C, Cubi-Molla P, Mott D. et al. Unmet parenthood goals, health-related quality of life and apparent irrationality: understanding the value of treatments for infertility. PharmacoEconom Open 2023; 7 (03) 337-344
- 18 Vassena R. Moonshots and last miles: what it may take to treat infertility for all. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 48 (02) 103642
- 19 Mercer. New survey finds employers adding fertility benefits to promote DEI, from The Survey on Fertility Benefits. 2021 . Accessed June 2, 2024 at: https://www.mercer.us/our-thinking/healthcare/new-survey-finds-employers-adding-fertility-benefits-to-promote-dei.html
- 20 Weigel G, Ranji U, Long M, Salganicoff A. KFF. Coverage and use of fertility services in the U.S. 2020 . Accessed June 2, 2024 at: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/coverage-and-use-of-fertility-services-in-the-u-s/
- 21 Chiware TM, Vermeulen N, Blondeel K. et al. IVF and other ART in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic landscape analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2021; 27 (02) 213-228
- 22 The Economist. Can the rich world escape its baby crisis?. May 21, 2024 . Accessed June 2, 2024 at: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/21/can-the-rich-world-escape-its-baby-crisis
- 23 Sample ML-based IVF refund program cost comparison. Accessed July 17, 2024 at: https://www.univfy.com/research/sample-ivf-refund-program-cost-comparison
- 24 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Financial “risk-sharing” or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2024; 121 (05) 783-786
- 25 van Empel IWH, Aarts JWM, Cohlen BJ. et al. Measuring patient-centredness, the neglected outcome in fertility care: a random multicentre validation study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (10) 2516-2526
- 26 Dancet EA, Van Empel IW, Rober P, Nelen WL, Kremer JA, D'Hooghe TM. Patient-centred infertility care: a qualitative study to listen to the patient's voice. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (04) 827-833
- 27 Moragianni VA, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after assisted reproductive technology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 22 (03) 189-192
- 28 Cedars MI. Fresh versus frozen: initial transfer or cumulative cycle results: how do we interpret results and design studies?. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (02) 251-256
- 29 McMahon C, Hammarberg K, Lensen S, Wang R, Mol BW, Vollenhoven BJN. What do women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) understand about their chance of IVF success?. Hum Reprod 2024; 39 (01) 130-138
- 30 Miron-Shatz T, Holzer H, Revel A. et al. ‘Luckily, I don’t believe in statistics': survey of women's understanding of chance of success with futile fertility treatments. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 42 (02) 463-470
- 31 Thomas JM, Cooney Jr LM, Fried TR. Prognosis reconsidered in light of ancient insights-from Hippocrates to modern medicine. JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179 (06) 820-823
- 32 Reindollar RH, Regan MM, Neumann PJ. et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate optimal treatment for unexplained infertility: the fast track and standard treatment (FASTT) trial. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (03) 888-899
- 33 Man JK-Y, Parker AE, Broughton S, Ikhlaq H, Das M. Should IUI replace IVF as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility? A literature review. BMC Womens Health 2023; 23 (01) 557
- 34 Osmanlıoğlu Ş, Şükür YE, Tokgöz VY. et al. Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation is a successful step prior to assisted reproductive technology for couples with unexplained infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 42 (03) 472-477
- 35 Artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) platform for IVF. Accessed July 17, 2024 at: https://www.univfy.com/research/univfy-ml-platform
- 36 Banerjee P, Choi B, Shahine LK. et al. Deep phenotyping to predict live birth outcomes in in vitro fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107 (31) 13570-13575
- 37 Nelson SM, Fleming R, Gaudoin M, Choi B, Santo-Domingo K, Yao M. Antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as prognostic indicators in a personalized prediction model of live birth. Fertil Steril 2015; 104 (02) 325-332
- 38 Choi B, Bosch E, Lannon BM. et al. Personalized prediction of first-cycle in vitro fertilization success. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (07) 1905-1911
- 39 Lannon BM, Choi B, Hacker MR. et al. Predicting personalized multiple birth risks after in vitro fertilization-double embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (01) 69-76
- 40 Chen SH, Xie YA, Cekleniak NA, Keegan DA, Yao MWM. In search of the crystal ball - how many eggs to a live birth? A 2-step prediction model for egg freezing counseling based on individual patient and center data. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (03) 83-84
- 41 Shingshetty L, Cameron NJ, Mclernon DJ, Bhattacharya S. Predictors of success after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2024; 121 (05) 742-751
- 42 Examples of clinical variables used in IVF prediction models. Accessed July 17, 2024 at: www.univfy.com/research/sample-ivf-clinical-predictors
- 43 McLernon DJ, Raja EA, Toner JP. et al. Predicting personalized cumulative live birth following in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2022; 117 (02) 326-338
- 44 Xu T, de Figueiredo Veiga A, Hammer KC, Paschalidis IC, Mahalingaiah S. Informative predictors of pregnancy after first IVF cycle using eIVF practice highway electronic health records. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 839
- 45 Cai J, Jiang X, Liu L. et al. Pretreatment prediction for IVF outcomes: generalized applicable model or centre-specific model?. Hum Reprod 2024; 39 (02) 364-373
- 46 Nayudu PL, Gook DA, Hepworth G, Lopata A, Johnston WI. Prediction of outcome in human in vitro fertilization based on follicular and stimulation response variables. Fertil Steril 1989; 51 (01) 117-125
- 47 Hughes EG, King C, Wood EC. A prospective study of prognostic factors in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1989; 51 (05) 838-844
- 48 Stolwijk AM, Zielhuis GA, Hamilton CJ. et al. Prognostic models for the probability of achieving an ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization and the importance of testing their predictive value. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (10) 2298-2303
- 49 Templeton A, Morris JK. Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 1998; 339 (09) 573-577
- 50 Commenges-Ducos M, Tricaud S, Papaxanthos-Roche A, Dallay D, Horovitz J, Commenges D. Modelling of the probability of success of the stages of in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: stimulation, fertilization and implantation. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (01) 78-83
- 51 Minaretzis D, Harris D, Alper MM, Mortola JF, Berger MJ, Power D. Multivariate analysis of factors predictive of successful live births in in vitro fertilization (IVF) suggests strategies to improve IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998; 15 (06) 365-371
- 52 Hunault CC, Eijkemans MJ, Pieters MH. et al. A prediction model for selecting patients undergoing in vitro fertilization for elective single embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2002; 77 (04) 725-732
- 53 Ferlitsch K, Sator MO, Gruber DM, Rücklinger E, Gruber CJ, Huber JC. Body mass index, follicle-stimulating hormone and their predictive value in in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet 2004; 21 (12) 431-436
- 54 Lehert P, Chin W, Schertz J, D'Hooghe T, Alviggi C, Humaidan P. Predicting live birth for poor ovarian responders: the PROsPeR concept. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 37 (01) 43-52
- 55 Güvenir HA, Misirli G, Dilbaz S, Ozdegirmenci O, Demir B, Dilbaz B. Estimating the chance of success in IVF treatment using a ranking algorithm. Med Biol Eng Comput 2015; 53 (09) 911-920
- 56 Metello JL, Tomás C, Ferreira P. Can we predict the IVF/ICSI live birth rate?. JBRA Assist Reprod 2019; 23 (04) 402-407
- 57 Bancsi LF, Huijs AM, den Ouden CT. et al. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels are of limited value in predicting ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (03) 552-557
- 58 Jones CA, Christensen AL, Salihu H. et al. Prediction of individual probabilities of live birth and multiple birth events following in vitro fertilization (IVF): a new outcomes counselling tool for IVF providers and patients using HFEA metrics. J Exp Clin Assist Reprod 2011; 8: 3
- 59 Nelson SM, Lawlor DA. Predicting live birth, preterm delivery, and low birth weight in infants born from in vitro fertilisation: a prospective study of 144,018 treatment cycles. PLoS Med 2011; 8 (01) e1000386
- 60 Vaegter KK, Lakic TG, Olovsson M, Berglund L, Brodin T, Holte J. Which factors are most predictive for live birth after in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments? Analysis of 100 prospectively recorded variables in 8,400 IVF/ICSI single-embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (03) 641-648.e2
- 61 Stolwijk AM, Wetzels AM, Braat DD. Cumulative probability of achieving an ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection according to a woman's age, subfertility diagnosis and primary or secondary subfertility. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (01) 203-209
- 62 Lintsen AM, Eijkemans MJ, Hunault CC. et al. Predicting ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF and ICSI: a national prospective study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (09) 2455-2462
- 63 Grzegorczyk-Martin V, Roset J, Di Pizio P. et al. Adaptive data-driven models to best predict the likelihood of live birth as the IVF cycle moves on and for each embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022; 39 (08) 1937-1949 [ Erratum in: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023 Feb;40(2):429. PMID: 35767167; PMCID: PMC9428070]
- 64 Ottosen LD, Kesmodel U, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev HJ. Pregnancy prediction models and eSET criteria for IVF patients – do we need more information?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24 (01) 29-36
- 65 La Marca A, Capuzzo M, Donno V. et al. The predicted probability of live birth in in vitro fertilization varies during important stages throughout the treatment: analysis of 114,882 first cycles. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021; 50 (03) 101878
- 66 Roberts SA, McGowan L, Mark Hirst W. et al; towardSET Collaboration. Reducing the incidence of twins from IVF treatments: predictive modelling from a retrospective cohort. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (03) 569-575
- 67 Carrera-Rotllan J, Estrada-García L, Sarquella-Ventura J. Prediction of pregnancy in IVF cycles on the fourth day of ovarian stimulation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24 (09) 387-394
- 68 van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Repping S, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F. Individualized decision-making in IVF: calculating the chances of pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (11) 2972-2980
- 69 Zhang Q, Wang X, Zhang Y, Lu H, Yu Y. Nomogram prediction for the prediction of clinical pregnancy in freeze-thawed embryo transfer. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022; 22 (01) 629
- 70 Vogiatzi P, Pouliakis A, Siristatidis C. An artificial neural network for the prediction of assisted reproduction outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36 (07) 1441-1448
- 71 Gao H, Liu DE, Li Y, Wu X, Tan H. Early prediction of live birth for assisted reproductive technology patients: a convenient and practical prediction model. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 331
- 72 Gong X, Zhang Y, Zhu Y. et al. Development and validation of a live birth prediction model for expected poor ovarian response patients during IVF/ICSI. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2023; 14: 1027805
- 73 Wu Y, Yang R, Lin H, Cao C, Jiao X, Zhang Q. A validated model for individualized prediction of live birth in patients with adenomyosis undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2022; 13: 902083
- 74 Hassan MR, Al-Insaif S, Hossain MI, Kamruzzaman J. A machine learning approach for prediction of pregnancy outcome following IVF treatment. Neural Comput Appl 2020; 32: 2283-2297
- 75 CNBarreto N, Castro GZ, Pereira RG. et al. Predicting in vitro fertilization success in the Brazilian public health system: a machine learning approach. Med Biol Eng Comput 2022; 60 (07) 1851-1861
- 76 Wen JY, Liu CF, Chung MT, Tsai YC. Artificial intelligence model to predict pregnancy and multiple pregnancy risk following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 61 (05) 837-846
- 77 Mehrjerd A, Rezaei H, Eslami S, Ratna MB, Khadem Ghaebi N. Internal validation and comparison of predictive models to determine success rate of infertility treatments: a retrospective study of 2485 cycles. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 7216
- 78 Wang CW, Kuo CY, Chen CH, Hsieh YH, Su EC. Predicting clinical pregnancy using clinical features and machine learning algorithms in in vitro fertilization. PLoS One 2022; 17 (06) e0267554
- 79 Fu K, Li Y, Lv H, Wu W, Song J, Xu J. Development of a model predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization cycles by a robust decision tree method. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2022; 13: 877518
- 80 Yang H, Liu F, Ma Y, Di M. Clinical pregnancy outcomes prediction in vitro fertilization women based on random forest prediction model: a nested case-control study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022; 101 (49) e32232
- 81 Goyal A, Kuchana M, Ayyagari KPR. Machine learning predicts live-birth occurrence before in-vitro fertilization treatment. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 20925
- 82 Dhillon RK, McLernon DJ, Smith PP. et al. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (01) 84-92
- 83 McLernon DJ, Maheshwari A, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rates after one or more complete cycles of IVF: a population-based study of linked cycle data from 178,898 women. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (03) 572-581
- 84 Ratna MB, Bhattacharya S, van Geloven N, McLernon DJ. Predicting cumulative live birth for couples beginning their second complete cycle of in vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod 2022; 37 (09) 2075-2086
- 85 Qiu J, Li P, Dong M, Xin X, Tan J. Personalized prediction of live birth prior to the first in vitro fertilization treatment: a machine learning method. J Transl Med 2019; 17 (01) 317
- 86 Nguyen ET, Retzloff MG, Gago LA. et al. Predicting IVF live birth probabilities using machine learning, center-specific and national registry-based models. medRxiv 2024;
- 87 Liu X, Chen Z, Ji Y. Construction of the machine learning-based live birth prediction models for the first in vitro fertilization pregnant women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023; 23 (01) 476
- 88 Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E. et al. A prediction model for live birth and multiple births within the first three cycles of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (03) 744-752
- 89 Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992; 340 (8810) 17-18
- 90 Asada Y. Evolution of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: from initial challenges to wider applications. Reprod Med Biol 2024; 23 (01) e12582
- 91 Celada P, Bosch E. Freeze-all, for whom, when, and how. Ups J Med Sci 2020; 125 (02) 104-111
- 92 Cohen J, Grudzinskas G, Johnson M. Welcome to the ‘100% club’!. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24 (04) 375-376
- 93 Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J. et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (02) 185-324.e5
- 94 Braakhekke M, Kamphuis EI, Dancet EA, Mol F, van der Veen F, Mol BW. Ongoing pregnancy qualifies best as the primary outcome measure of choice in trials in reproductive medicine: an opinion paper. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (05) 1203-1204
- 95 Barnhart KT. Live birth is the correct outcome for clinical trials evaluating therapy for the infertile couple. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (05) 1205-1208
- 96 Clarke JF, van Rumste MM, Farquhar CM, Johnson NP, Mol BW, Herbison P. Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates?. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (05) 1647-1651
- 97 Houwelingen JC, Cessie S. Logistic regression, a review. Stat Neerl 1988; 42 (04) 215-232
- 98 Bagley SC, White H, Golomb BA. Logistic regression in the medical literature: standards for use and reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54 (10) 979-985
- 99 Tolles J, Meurer WJ. Logistic regression: relating patient characteristics to outcomes. JAMA 2016; 316 (05) 533-534
- 100 JAMA. Logistic Regression—What It Is and How to Use It in Clinical Research. JAMA evidence: Guide to Statistics and Methods. Published online: January 7, 2021. Accessed June 1, 2024 at: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/18574348
- 101 Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Logistic regression. Perspect Clin Res 2017; 8 (03) 148-151
- 102 Advantages and disadvantages of logistic regression. Accessed June 1, 2024 at: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-logistic-regression/
- 103 Kumar S. Assumptions and limitations of logistic regression: navigating the nuances. Accessed June 1, 2024 at: https://medium.com/@skme20417/4-assumptions-and-limitations-of-logistic-regression-navigating-the-nuances-8ef249cc7a01
- 104 Mitchell TM. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill;; 1997
- 105 Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer; 2009
- 106 Cox DR. The regression analysis of binary sequences. J R Stat Soc B 1958; 20 (02) 215-232
- 107 Friedman JH. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 2001; 29 (05) 1189-1232
- 108 Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2016: 785-794
- 109 Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T. et al. LightGBM: a highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2017: 3149-3157 . Available at: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017 . Accessed on September 20, 2024
- 110 Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 1996; 58 (01) 267-288
- 111 Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn 2001; 45 (01) 5-32
- 112 May M. Eight ways machine learning is assisting medicine. Nat Med 2021; 27 (01) 2-3
- 113 Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B. et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med 2019; 25 (01) 24-29
- 114 Chen D, Liu S, Kingsbury P. et al. Deep learning and alternative learning strategies for retrospective real-world clinical data. NPJ Digit Med 2019; 2: 43
- 115 Leushuis E, van der Steeg JW, Steures P. et al. Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15 (05) 537-552
- 116 Srivastava T. 12 Important model evaluation metrics for machine learning everyone should know. (updated 2023 ). Accessed June 1, 2024 at: https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2019/08/11-important-model-evaluation-error-metrics/
- 117 Cross validation in machine learning. December. 21, 2023 . Accessed September 5, 2024 at: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/cross-validation-machine-learning/
- 118 Dvorak T. Why isn't out-of-time validation more ubiquitous? Towards Data Science. Feb 11, 2019 . Accessed June 1, 2024 at: https://towardsdatascience.com/why-isnt-out-of-time-validation-more-ubiquitous-7397098c4ab6
- 119 Maleki F, Muthukrishnan N, Ovens K, Reinhold C, Forghani R. Machine learning algorithm validation: from essentials to advanced applications and implications for regulatory certification and deployment. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2020; 30 (04) 433-445
- 120 Subbaswamy A, Saria S. From development to deployment: dataset shift, causality, and shift-stable models in health AI. Biostatistics 2020; 21 (02) 345-352
- 121 Finlayson SG, Subbaswamy A, Singh K. et al. The clinician and dataset shift in artificial intelligence. N Engl J Med 2021; 385 (03) 283-286
- 122 Human Fertilization & Embryology Authority (HFEA). Multiple births in fertility treatment. 2019 . Accessed on April 29, 2024 at: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/multiple-births-in-fertility-treatment-2019/
- 123 Curchoe CL, Tarafdar O, Aquilina MC, Seifer DB. SART CORS IVF registry: looking to the past to shape future perspectives. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022; 39 (11) 2607-2616
- 124 Swanson T, Yao M, Retzloff M. et al. Inter-center variation of patients' clinical profiles is associated with live birth outcomes. Fertil Steril 2023; 120 (4, Supp): E175
- 125 Khera R, Haimovich J, Hurley NC. et al. Use of machine learning models to predict death after acute myocardial infarction. JAMA Cardiol 2021; 6 (06) 633-641
- 126 Kent J. Machine learning limited when applied to clinical data registries. HealthIT Analytics March 11, 2021 . Accessed July 17, 2024 at: https://healthitanalytics.com/news/machine-learning-limited-when-applied-to-clinical-data-registries
- 127 Rodrigues MMS, Barreto-Duarte B, Vinhaes CL. et al. Machine learning algorithms using national registry data to predict loss to follow-up during tuberculosis treatment. BMC Public Health 2024; 24 (01) 1385
- 128 Jalali A, Lonsdale H, Zamora LV. et al; Pediatric Craniofacial Collaborative Group. Machine learning applied to registry data: development of a patient-specific prediction model for blood transfusion requirements during craniofacial surgery using the pediatric craniofacial perioperative registry dataset. Anesth Analg 2021; 132 (01) 160-171
- 129 Chen Y, Gue Y, Calvert P. et al; KERALA-AF Registry & APHRS-AF Registry Investigators Joint Senior Authors. Predicting stroke in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation using machine learning: a report from the KERALA-AF registry, with external validation in the APHRS-AF registry. Curr Probl Cardiol 2024; 49 (04) 102456
- 130 Artemova S, von Schenck U, Fa R. et al. Cohort profile for development of machine learning models to predict healthcare-related adverse events (Demeter): clinical objectives, data requirements for modelling and overview of data set for 2016-2018. BMJ Open 2023; 13 (08) e070929
- 131 Kundu S, Aulchenko YS, van Duijn CM, Janssens AC. PredictABEL: an R package for the assessment of risk prediction models. Eur J Epidemiol 2011; 26 (04) 261-264
- 132 Cook NR, Paynter NP. Performance of reclassification statistics in comparing risk prediction models. Biom J 2011; 53 (02) 237-258
- 133 Kerr KF, Wang Z, Janes H, McClelland RL, Psaty BM, Pepe MS. Net reclassification indices for evaluating risk prediction instruments: a critical review. Epidemiology 2014; 25 (01) 114-121
- 134 Saito T, Rehmsmeier M. The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. PLoS One 2015; 10 (03) e0118432
- 135 Requirements for point-of-care delivery of artificial intelligence/ machine learning (AI/ML)-based prognostics at scale. Accessed July 17, 2024 at: https://www.univfy.com/research/point-of-care-requirements
- 136 The development-to-deployment life cycle of the machine learning-based, center specific (MLCS), prognostic model for use at point-of-care to support patient counseling. Accessed on July 17, 2024 at: https://www.univfy.com/research/mlcs-dev-to-deployment-lifecycle
- 137 Goldstein J, Weitzman D, Lemerond M, Jones A. Determinants for scalable adoption of autonomous AI in the detection of diabetic eye disease in diverse practice types: key best practices learned through collection of real-world data. Front Digit Health 2023; 5: 1004130
- 138 Hariton E, Alvero R, Hill MJ. et al. Meeting the demand for fertility services: the present and future of reproductive endocrinology and infertility in the United States. Fertil Steril 2023; 120 (04) 755-766
- 139 Adeleye AJ, Kawwass JF, Brauer A, Storment J, Patrizio P, Feinberg E. The mismatch in supply and demand: reproductive endocrinology and infertility workforce challenges and controversies. Fertil Steril 2023; 120 (3, Pt 1): 403-405
- 140 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Accessed May 10, 2024 at: www.sart.org
- 141 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and University of Aberdeen. Accessed May 10, 2024 at: https://w3.abdn.ac.uk/clsm/SARTIVF/
- 142 University of Aberdeen. Outcome Prediction in Subfertility, OPIS. Accessed May 10, 2024 at: https://w3.abdn.ac.uk/clsm/opis
- 143 Yao MWM, Nguyen ET, Retzloff MG. et al. Improving IVF utilization with patient-centric artificial intelligence machine learning (AI/ML): a retrospective multicenter experience. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (12) 3560
- 144 Salybekov AA, Wolfien M, Hahn W, Hidaka S, Kobayashi S. Artificial intelligence reporting guidelines' adherence in nephrology for improved research and clinical outcomes. Biomedicines 2024; 12 (03) 606
- 145 EQUATOR Network. What is a Reporting Guideline?. Accessed February 20, 2024 at: https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/
- 146 Sounderajah V, Ashrafian H, Aggarwal R. et al. Developing specific reporting guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies assessing AI interventions: The STARD-AI Steering Group. Nat Med 2020; 26 (06) 807-808
- 147 Tripod Statement. Accessed February 20, 2024 at: https://www.tripod-statement.org/
- 148 Liu X, Rivera SC, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK. SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI Extension. BMJ 2020; 370: m3164
- 149 Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B. et al; DECIDE-AI Expert Group. Reporting guideline for the early stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. BMJ 2022; 377: e070904
- 150 Duda RO, Hart PE. Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis. New York:: Wiley;; 1973