Development and validation of a gonadotropin dose selection model for optimized ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation varies widely among women, and could impact the probability of live birth as well as treatment risks. Many studies have evaluated the impact of different gonadotropin starting doses, mainly based on predictive variables like ovarian reserve tests (ORT) including anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), and basal follicle-stimulating hormone (bFSH). A Cochrane systematic review revealed that individualizing the gonadotropin starting dose does not affect efficacy in terms of ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates, but may reduce treatment risks such as the development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). An individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) offers a unique opportunity to develop and validate a universal prediction model to help choose the optimal gonadotropin starting dose to minimize treatment risks without affecting efficacy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective of this IPD-MA is to develop and validate a gonadotropin dose-selection model to guide the choice of a gonadotropin starting dose in IVF/ICSI, with the purpose of minimizing treatment risks without compromising live birth rates. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CRSO were searched to identify eligible studies. The last search was performed on 13 July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they compared different doses of gonadotropins in women undergoing IVF/ICSI, presented at least one type of ORT, and reported on live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Authors of eligible studies were contacted to share their individual participant data (IPD). IPD and information within publications were used to determine the risk of bias. Generalized linear mixed multilevel models were applied for predictor selection and model development. OUTCOMES: A total of 14 RCTs with data of 3455 participants were included. After extensive modeling, women aged 39 years and over were excluded, which resulted in the definitive inclusion of 2907 women. The optimal prediction model for live birth included six predictors: age, gonadotropin starting dose, body mass index, AFC, IVF/ICSI, and AMH. This model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.557 (95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.536 to 0.577). The clinically feasible live birth model included age, starting dose, and AMH and had an AUC of 0.554 (95% CI from 0.530 to 0.578). Two models were selected as the optimal model for combined treatment risk, as their performance was equal. One included age, starting dose, AMH, and bFSH; the other also included gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog. The AUCs for both models were 0.769 (95% CI from 0.729 to 0.809). The clinically feasible model for combined treatment risk included age, starting dose, AMH, and GnRH analog, and had an AUC of 0.748 (95% CI from 0.709 to 0.787). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The aim of this study was to create a model including patient characteristics whereby gonadotropin starting dose was predictive of both live birth and treatment risks. The model performed poorly on predicting live birth by modifying the FSH starting dose. On the contrary, predicting treatment risks in terms of OHSS occurrence and management by modifying the gonadotropin starting dose was adequate. This dose-selection model, consisting of easily obtainable patient characteristics, aids in the choice of the optimal gonadotropin starting dose for each individual patient to lower treatment risks and potentially reduce treatment costs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,073 | 0,107 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,016 | 0,056 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».