2023 / 06

Next Paper
DOI: 10.24075/brsmu.2023.057

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Predicting the outcomes of in vitro fertilization programs using a random forest machine learning model

Vladimirsky GM1, Zhuravleva MA1, Dashieva AE2, Korneeva IE2, Nazarenko TA2
About authors

1 Higher School of Economics National Research University, Moscow, Russia

2 Kulakov National Medical Scientific Centre for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatal Medicine, Moscow, Russia

Correspondence should be addressed: Ayuna E. Dashieva
Akademika Oparina, 4B, Moscow, 117198, Russia, ur.liam@aveihsad.rd

About paper

Author contribution: Vladimirsky GM — predictive models training, literature analysis, choice of research methods; Zhuravleva MA — preprocessing and analysis of data, literature analysis, manuscript authoring; Dashieva AE — processing of source material, analysis of results; Korneeva IE, Nazarenko TA — development of the survey for the database, manuscript editing.

Received: 2023-11-24 Accepted: 2023-12-19 Published online: 2023-12-31
|
  1. Korsak VS, Smirnova AA, Shurygina OV. Registr VRT Obshherossijskoj obshhestvennoj organizacii «Rossijskaja associacija reprodukcii cheloveka». Otchet za 2020 god. Problemy reprodukcii. 2022; 28 (6): 12–27. DOI: 10.17116/repro20222806112. Russian.
  2. Hassan MR, Al-Insaif S, Hossain MI, Kamruzzaman J. A machine learning approach for prediction of pregnancy outcome following IVF treatment. Neural Computing and Applications. 2018; 32: 2283–97.
  3. Ratna MB, Bhattacharya S, Abdulrahim B, McLernon DJ. A systematic review of the quality of clinical prediction models in in vitro fertilisation. Human Reproduction. 2020; 35: 100–116.
  4. Lintsen A, Eijkemans M, Hunault C, Bouwmans C, Hakkaart L, Habbema J, et al. Predicting ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF and ICSI: A national prospective study. Human Reproduction. 2007; 22: 2455–62.
  5. van Weert JM, Repping S, van der Steeg JW, Steures P, van der Veen F, Mol BW. A prediction model for ongoing pregnancy after in vitro fertilization in couples with male subfertility. J Reprod Med. 2008; 53 (4): 250–6. PMID: 18472647.
  6. Jones CA, Christensen AL, Salihu H, Carpenter W, Petrozzino J, Abrams E, et al. Prediction of individual probabilities of livebirth and multiple birth events following in vitro fertilization (IVF): A new outcomes counselling tool for IVF providers and patients using HFEA metrics. Journal of experimental clinical assisted reproduction. 2011; 8: 3.
  7. 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 Medicine. 2011; 8: e1000386.
  8. van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Repping S, Bossuyt PMM, van der Veen F. Individualized decision-making in IVF: Calculating the chances of pregnancy. Human Reproduction. 2013; 28: 2972–80
  9. Dhillon R, McLernon D, Smith P, Fishel S, Dowell K, Deeks J, et al. Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: A novel pretreatment counselling tool. Human Reproduction. 2015; 31: 84–92.
  10. McLernon DJ, Steyerberg EW, te Velde ER, Lee AJ, 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; p. i5735.
  11. McLernon DJ, Raja EA, Toner JP, Baker VL, Doody KJ, Seifer DB. Predicting personalized cumulative live birth following in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility. 2022; 117 (2): 326–38.
  12. 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. Fertility and Sterility. 2017; 107 (3): 641–48.
  13. Ottosen LDM, Kesmodel U, Hindkjaer J, Ingerslev HJ. Pregnancy prediction models and eSET criteria for IVF patients–do we need more information? Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics. 2007; 24 (1): 29–36.
  14. Xu T, d. F. Veiga A, Hammer KC, Paschalidis ICh, Mahalingaiah Sh. Informative predictors of pregnancy after first IVF cycle using eIVF practice highway electronic health records. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12: 1–9.
  15. C N Barreto N, Castro GZ, Pereira RG, Pereira FAN, Reis FM, Junior WM, et al. Predicting in vitro fertilization success in the Brazilian public health system: a machine learning approach. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2022; 60 (7): 1851–61. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-022-02569-1. Epub 2022 May 4. PMID: 35508786.
  16. 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. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2020; 37: 2405–12.
  17. Lundberg S, Lee S-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874, may 22 2017.
  18. Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Statistics in Medicine: Calculating confidence intervals for relative risks (odds ratios) and standardised ratios and rates. BMJ. 1988; 296: 1313–6.
  19. Sheskin DJ. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2003.
  20. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ. Classification and regression trees. Routledge, 2017.
  21. Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E. Scikitlearn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011; 12: 2825–30.
  22. Prokhorenkova L, Gusev G, Vorobev A, Dorogush AV, Gulin A. Catboost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features. 2017. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09516.