MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generative Adversarial Imputation Networks (GAIN) to Handle Missing Clinical Data for IVF Success Prediction

2025· article· W7126091384 on OpenAlexaff
Mamadou Maladho Barry, Hayda Almeida, Debbie Montjean, Moncef Benkhalifa, Pierre Miron, Abdoulaye Baniré Diallo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImputation (statistics)Missing dataDiscriminatorDiscriminative modelBayesian probabilityGenerative grammar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Missing data are a common challenge for machine learning (ML) approaches that provide clinical decision support, especially for complex medical outcomes such as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment prediction. Imputation methods have been studied to handle missing data, and shown to provide performance improvement of prediction models. Recently, Generative Adversarial Imputation Networks (GAIN) have been successfully applied to handle missing values in clinical data. This study implements and evaluates four imputation methods: a statistical, single imputation method and three ML-based imputation approaches, being KNN, MissForest, and GAIN. Imputation was applied to the full dataset, and the resulting complete data was then used to construct three task-specific datasets: blastocyst, pregnancy, and birth. Datasets are built based on a IVF treatment database of over 300 patients, and composed of over 50 discriminative features. Prediction models are built based on a 10-fold cross validation split and five classification algorithms: MLP, Random Forest, XGBoost, Gradient Boosting, and Bayesian Logistic. After applying imputation methods, feature value distributions remained largely consistent when compared to the distributions prior to imputation. Results suggest that GAIN imputation leads to effective convergence during model training, as both generator and discriminator losses decrease considerably. GAIN imputation outperformed all other ML-based imputation methods for the three prediction tasks. While single imputation yield F1 metrics for blastocyst, pregnancy, and birth of$0.50,0.56,0.13$, GAIN yield$0.74,0.75,0.76$, respectively for the negative class; for the positive class single imputation yield F1 metrics of$0.67,0.45,0.81$, while GAIN yield$0.76,0.51,0.85$respectively. Improvement of classification model performances after imputation suggest that a generative imputation approach might be beneficial to the task at hand.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207