MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312217488 · doi:10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.3.1127

Auto machine learning to predict pregnancy after fresh embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization

2022· article· en· W4312217488 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus Vinicius Dantas, Paulo Gallo de Sá, Maria Cecília Erthal

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitro fertilisationEmbryo transferPregnancyConstruct (python library)Transfer of learningMachine learningLive birthArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceReproductionPregnancy rateOutcome (game theory)ObstetricsMedicineBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The use of human reproduction techniques (ART) to obtain pregnancy are increasing. However pregnancy rates after ART remain as low as around 30%. The use of machine Learning (ML) is increasing in medicine and prediction models are helpful to preview the outcome of in vitro fertilization(IVF) cycles. Methods: Data from IVF cycles with fresh embryo transfer between January 2018 and December 2021 were collected. The Auto Machine Learning (Auto ML) PyCaret was used to construct the model and predict the clinical pregnancy rate. Results: Among 14 ML algorithms, Ridge Classification (RC) has the best accuracy(57,69%). Transfer in day 5 was the most important feature related to the outcome. Conclusion: Despite the low accuracy as a result of a small sample, familiarization with ML models, as well as awareness of the importance of data collection should be part of daily activities of physicians and healthcare professionals in the field of ART.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and ReviewsSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207