Study of comparative performance of general-purpose LLM-based systems in predicting IVF outcomes

In this exploratory proof-of-concept setting, general-purpose AI systems showed variable and overall suboptimal performance in predicting IVF outcomes from standardized clinical vignettes. Although certain models demonstrated relative strengths in specific tasks, none reached the reliability, consistency, or interpretability required for safe clinical implementation. These findings indicate that, in their current form, such models should not be used as clinical decision-support tools for IVF decision-making and that their use should remain restricted to carefully controlled research settings until they have been prospectively validated in multicenter cohorts and systematically compared with rigorously developed, task-specific prediction models. This study provides comparative insight into how these AI systems behave in IVF-related prediction tasks and underscores the need for cautious interpretation of AI-generated outputs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published
2026-01-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-025-03793-y
Primary Topic
Ovarian function and disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

Study of comparative performance of general-purpose LLM-based systems in predicting IVF outcomes

Nasuh Utku Doğan, Can Dinç, Saltuk Buğra Arıkan, Ömer Faruk Öz et al.
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Ovarian function and disorders
article

Study of comparative performance of general-purpose LLM-based systems in predicting IVF outcomes

Nasuh Utku Doğan, Can Dinç, Saltuk Buğra Arıkan, Ömer Faruk Öz, Selen Doğan, İnanç Mendilcioğlu
article en

Abstract

In this exploratory proof-of-concept setting, general-purpose AI systems showed variable and overall suboptimal performance in predicting IVF outcomes from standardized clinical vignettes. Although certain models demonstrated relative strengths in specific tasks, none reached the reliability, consistency, or interpretability required for safe clinical implementation. These findings indicate that, in their current form, such models should not be used as clinical decision-support tools for IVF decision-making and that their use should remain restricted to carefully controlled research settings until they have been prospectively validated in multicenter cohorts and systematically compared with rigorously developed, task-specific prediction models. This study provides comparative insight into how these AI systems behave in IVF-related prediction tasks and underscores the need for cautious interpretation of AI-generated outputs.

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and GeneticsVol. 43(3)
Akdeniz University (TR)
Akdeniz Üniversitesi
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Ovarian function and disorders
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.