» Articles » PMID: 20643955

Deep Phenotyping to Predict Live Birth Outcomes in in Vitro Fertilization

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2010 Jul 21
PMID 20643955
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Nearly 75% of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments do not result in live births and patients are largely guided by a generalized age-based prognostic stratification. We sought to provide personalized and validated prognosis by using available clinical and embryo data from prior, failed treatments to predict live birth probabilities in the subsequent treatment. We generated a boosted tree model, IVFBT, by training it with IVF outcomes data from 1,676 first cycles (C1s) from 2003-2006, followed by external validation with 634 cycles from 2007-2008, respectively. We tested whether this model could predict the probability of having a live birth in the subsequent treatment (C2). By using nondeterministic methods to identify prognostic factors and their relative nonredundant contribution, we generated a prediction model, IVF(BT), that was superior to the age-based control by providing over 1,000-fold improvement to fit new data (p<0.05), and increased discrimination by receiver-operative characteristic analysis (area-under-the-curve, 0.80 vs. 0.68 for C1, 0.68 vs. 0.58 for C2). IVFBT provided predictions that were more accurate for approximately 83% of C1 and approximately 60% of C2 cycles that were out of the range predicted by age. Over half of those patients were reclassified to have higher live birth probabilities. We showed that data from a prior cycle could be used effectively to provide personalized and validated live birth probabilities in a subsequent cycle. Our approach may be replicated and further validated in other IVF clinics.

Citing Articles

Patient-Centric In Vitro Fertilization Prognostic Counseling Using Machine Learning for the Pragmatist.

Yao M, Jenkins J, Nguyen E, Swanson T, Menabrito M Semin Reprod Med. 2024; 42(2):112-129.

PMID: 39379046 PMC: 11581823. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791536.


Improving IVF Utilization with Patient-Centric Artificial Intelligence-Machine Learning (AI/ML): A Retrospective Multicenter Experience.

Yao M, Nguyen E, Retzloff M, Gago L, Copland S, Nichols J J Clin Med. 2024; 13(12).

PMID: 38930089 PMC: 11204457. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123560.


Early prediction of live birth for assisted reproductive technology patients: a convenient and practical prediction model.

Gao H, Liu D, Li Y, Wu X, Tan H Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):331.

PMID: 33431900 PMC: 7801433. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79308-9.


Embryos derived from donor or patient oocytes are not different for in vitro fertilization outcomes when PGT allows euploid embryo selection: a retrospective study.

Schaeffer E, Porchia L, Neumann A, Luna A, Rojas T, Lopez-Bayghen E Clin Transl Med. 2020; 9(1):14.

PMID: 32030567 PMC: 7005195. DOI: 10.1186/s40169-020-0266-1.


Uterine size and volume are associated with higher live birth rate in patients undergoing assisted reproduction technology: A prospective cohort study.

Gao H, Liu D, Li Y, Tang J, Wu X, Tan H Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(47):e17966.

PMID: 31764800 PMC: 6882568. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017966.


References
1.
Guzick D, Overstreet J, Factor-Litvak P, Brazil C, Nakajima S, Coutifaris C . Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2002; 345(19):1388-93. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa003005. View

2.
Guzick D, Wilkes C, Jones Jr H . Cumulative pregnancy rates for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1986; 46(4):663-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)49645-7. View

3.
Malizia B, Hacker M, Penzias A . Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(3):236-43. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0803072. View

4.
Templeton A, Morris J, Parslow W . Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 1996; 348(9039):1402-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05291-9. View

5.
Cook N . Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation. 2007; 115(7):928-35. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.672402. View