Machine learning center-specific models show improved IVF live birth predictions over US national registry-based model

Expanding in vitro fertilization (IVF) access requires improved patient counseling and affordability via cost-success transparency. Clinicians ask how two types of live birth prediction (LBP) models perform: machine learning, center-specific (MLCS) models and the multicenter, US national registry-based model produced by Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). In a retrospective model validation study, we tested whether MLCS performs better than SART using 4635 patients' first-IVF cycle data from 6 centers. MLCS significantly improved minimization of false positives and negatives overall (precision recall area-under-the-curve) and at the 50% LBP threshold (F1 score) compared to SART (p < 0.05). To contextualize, MLCS more appropriately assigned 23% and 11% of all patients to LBP ≥ 50% and LBP ≥ 75% whereas SART gave lower LBPs. Here, we show MLCS improves model metrics relevant for clinical utility - personalizing prognostic counseling and cost-success transparency - and is externally validated. We recommend evaluating MLCS in a larger sample of fertility centers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Communications
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58744-z
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
24.46

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine learning center-specific models show improved IVF live birth predictions over US national registry-based model

Michael S. Opsahl, Lorie Nowak, Barry A. Ripps, Matthew G. Retzloff et al.
7 citations
Nature Communications
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
24.46
article

Machine learning center-specific models show improved IVF live birth predictions over US national registry-based model

Michael S. Opsahl, Lorie Nowak, Barry A. Ripps, Matthew G. Retzloff, Elizabeth T. Nguyen, Mylene Yao, Ronald D. Beesley, L. April Gago, Jeremy Michael Groll, John F. Payne, John E. Nichols, Gregory S. Neal, Trevor Swanson, Jaye Adams, Xiaocong Chen
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Expanding in vitro fertilization (IVF) access requires improved patient counseling and affordability via cost-success transparency. Clinicians ask how two types of live birth prediction (LBP) models perform: machine learning, center-specific (MLCS) models and the multicenter, US national registry-based model produced by Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). In a retrospective model validation study, we tested whether MLCS performs better than SART using 4635 patients' first-IVF cycle data from 6 centers. MLCS significantly improved minimization of false positives and negatives overall (precision recall area-under-the-curve) and at the 50% LBP threshold (F1 score) compared to SART (p < 0.05). To contextualize, MLCS more appropriately assigned 23% and 11% of all patients to LBP ≥ 50% and LBP ≥ 75% whereas SART gave lower LBPs. Here, we show MLCS improves model metrics relevant for clinical utility - personalizing prognostic counseling and cost-success transparency - and is externally validated. We recommend evaluating MLCS in a larger sample of fertility centers.

Nature CommunicationsVol. 16(1)
Nagaoka University (JP), MetLife (United States) (US), Piedmont International University (US), CARE Fertility (US), Fertility Medical Group (BR), Fertility Center of San Antonio (US), Alto Neuroscience (United States) (US)
Newlife the Charity for Disabled Children
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
24.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.