Evolution of predictive models for implementation of reproductive function in ART programs: from logistic regression to artificial intelligence

• Ayuna E. Dashieva
• Irina E. Korneeva

Abstract

The article presents data on the possibilities of predicting the outcomes of ART programs by building predictive models based on the literature, their evolution and current changes.

Keywords:IVF; assisted reproductive technologies; infertility; prediction model; computer-assisted learning; artificial intelligence

REFERENCES

1. Infertility workup for the women’s health specialist. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 781. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133: e377–84.

2. Vander Borght M., Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018; 62: 2–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012 Epub 2018 Mar 16. PMID: 29555319.

3. Steptoe P.C., Edwards R.G. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet. 1978; 2 (8085): 366.

4. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2019; 111 (4): 659–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.033 Epub 2019 Mar 11. PMID: 30871767.

5. Polyakov A., Gyngel C., Savulescu J. Modelling futility in the setting of fertility treatment. Hum Reprod. 2022; 37 (5): 877–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac051 PMID: 35298646; PMCID: PMC9071221.

6. Kawwass J.F., Badell M.L. Maternal and fetal risk associated with assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132 (3): 763–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002786 PMID: 30095760.

7. Van der Steeg J.W., Steures P., Eijkemans M.J., Habbema J.D., Bossuyt P.M., Hompes P.G., et al. Do clinical prediction models improve concordance of treatment decisions in reproductive medicine? BJOG. 2006; 113 (7): 825–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00992.x PMID: 16827767.

8. Toll D.B., Janssen K.J., Vergouwe Y., Moons K.G. Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61 (11): 1085–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.008 PMID: 19208371

9. Collins G.S., Reitsma J.B., Altman D.G., Moons K.G. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. 2015; 350: g7594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7594 PMID: 25569120.

10. Vickers A.J., Holland F. Decision curve analysis to evaluate the clinical benefit of prediction models. Spine J. 2021; 21 (10): 1643–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.024 Epub 2021 Mar 3. PMID: 33676020; PMCID: PMC8413398.

11. Leushuis E., van der Steeg J.W., Steures P., Bossuyt P.M., Eijkemans M.J., van der Veen F., et al. Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2009; 15 (5): 537–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp013 Epub 2009 May 12. PMID: 19435779.

12. Steyerberg E.W., Moons K.G., van der Windt D.A., Hayden J.A., Perel P., Schroter S., et al.; PROGRESS Group. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med. 2013; 10 (2): e1001381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001381 Epub 2013 Feb 5. PMID: 23393430; PMCID: PMC3564751.

13. Nayudu P.L., Gook D.A., Hepworth G., Lopata A., Johnston W.I. Prediction of outcome in human in vitro fertilization based on follicular and stimulation response variables. Fertil Steril. 1989; 51 (1): 117–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60439-9 PMID: 2910705.

14. Hughes E.G., King C., Wood E.C. A prospective study of prognostic factors in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1989; 51 (5): 838–44.

15. Templeton A., Morris J. K., Parslow W. Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 1996; 348 (9039): 1402–6.

16. Stolwijk A.M., Zielhuis G.A., Hamilton C.J., Straatman H., Hollanders J.M., Goverde H.J, et al. Pregnancy: 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): 2298–303.

17. Nelson S.M., Lawlor D.A. 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 (1): e1000386.

18. URL: http://www.IVFpredict.com

19. Dhillon R.K., McLernon D.J., Smith P.P., Fishel S., Dowell K., Deeks J.J., et al. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31 (1): 84–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev268 Epub 2015 Oct 25. PMID: 26498177.

20. McLernon D.J., Steyerberg E.W., Te Velde E.R., Lee A.J., Bhattacharya S. Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation: population-based study of linked cycle data from 113 873 women. BMJ. 2016; 355: i5735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5735 PMID: 27852632; PMCID: PMC5112178.

21. URL: https://w3.abdn.ac.uk/clsm/opis

22. Coppus S.F., van der Veen F., Opmeer B.C., Mol B.W., Bossuyt P.M. Evaluating prediction models in reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24 (8): 1774–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep109 Epub 2009 Apr 23. PMID: 19395365.

23. Ratna M.B., Bhattacharya S., Abdulrahim B., McLernon D.J. A systematic review of the quality of clinical prediction models in in vitro fertilization Hum Reprod. 2020; 35 (1): 100–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez258 PMID: 31960915.

24. Ratna M.B., Bhattacharya S., McLernon D.J. External validation of models for predicting cumulative live birth over multiple complete cycles of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2023; 38 (10): 1998–2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead165 PMID: 37632223.

25. McLernon D.J., Steyerberg E.W., Te Velde E.R., Lee A.J., Bhattacharya S. An improvement in the method used to assess discriminatory ability when predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation. BMJ. 2018; 362: k3598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3598 PMID: 30185457.

26. Curchoe C.L., Bormann C.L. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for human reproduction and embryology presented at ASRM and ESHRE 2018. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36 (4): 591–600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01408-x

27. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.877518 PMID: 36093079.

28. Vogiatzi P., Pouliakis A., Siristatidis C. An artificial neural network for the prediction of assisted reproduction outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36 (7): 1441–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01498-7 Epub 2019 Jun 19. PMID: 31218565; PMCID: PMC6642243.

29. Khosravi P., Kazemi E., Zhan Q., Malmsten J.E., Toschi M., Zisimopoulos P., et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Digit Med. 2019; 2: 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0096-y PMID: 31304368; PMCID: PMC6550169.

30. Barnett-Itzhaki Z., Elbaz M., Butterman R., Amar D., Amitay M., Racowsky C., et al. Machine learning vs. classic statistics for the prediction of IVF outcomes J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020; 37 (10): 2405–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01908-1 Epub 2020 Aug 11. PMID: 32783138.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)