An Artificial Intelligence-Based Model to Predict Pregnancy After Intrauterine Insemination: A Retrospective Analysis of 9501 Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a common first-line approach in the treatment of numerous infertile couples, especially in cases of unexplained infertility. Its relatively low success rate, however, could benefit from the development of AI-based support tools to predict its outcome, thus helping the clinical management of patients undergoing IUI cycles. Our objective was to develop a robust and accurate machine learning model that predicts pregnancy outcomes following IUI. Methods: A retrospective, observational, and single-center study was conducted. In total, 3535 couples (aged 18–43 years) that underwent IUI between January 2011 and December 2015 were recruited. Twenty-one clinical and laboratory parameters of 9501 IUI cycles were used to train different machine learning algorithms. Accuracy of pregnancy outcome was evaluated by an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Results: The linear SVM outperformed AdaBoost, Kernel SVM, Random Forest, Extreme Forest, Bagging, and Voting classifiers. Pre-wash sperm concentration, the ovarian stimulation protocol, cycle length, and maternal age were strong predictors of a positive pregnancy test following IUI (AUC = 0.78). Paternal age was found to be the worst predictor. Conclusions: Our Linear SVM model predicts a positive pregnancy outcome following IUI. Although this model shows value for the clinical management of infertile patients and informed decision-making by the patients, further validation using independent datasets is required prior to clinical implementation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".