arXiv preprint ·
Machine Learning for Live-Birth Prediction After IVF/ICSI From Structured Clinical Data: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Appraisal
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
In brief
IVF Prediction: Accuracy Isn’t the Whole Story
The authors systematically reviewed 48 studies, assessed their reporting and risk of bias, and pooled model performance across different validation designs. They also set out a checklist and benchmark specification, finding that decision-point staging and local calibration matter more than simply using deeper architectures.
What they found: Across 48 studies, models evaluated only internally pooled to an AUC of 0.814, compared with 0.756 for evaluation on a later period or at another centre and 0.764 in studies not at high risk of bias; these differences were not significant, and heterogeneity was extreme. Models with an unstated decision point pooled to an AUC of 0.910, the only significant moderator in meta-regression.
AI-written summary. Check anything you rely on against the original paper.
Abstract
Machine-learning models predicting live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from routine clinical data report performance from near chance to near perfect. We systematically reviewed these models under PRISMA 2020, searching OpenAlex, Scopus and Web of Science to 22 October 2026, appraised them with PROBAST+AI and TRIPOD+AI, and pooled their discrimination with random-effects meta-analysis on the logit scale. We define what fixes the meaning of a model's output (decision point, endpoint, unit of analysis, data source) and map the 48 included studies by model family, decision point and validation design. Models evaluated only internally pooled to an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.814, against 0.756 (95% prediction interval 0.546-0.889) for models evaluated on a later period or another centre, and 0.764 for studies not at high risk of bias; neither difference was significant, and heterogeneity was extreme. Models whose decision point was not stated pooled to 0.910, the only significant moderator in meta-regression. Against logistic regression fitted to the same data, the best machine-learning model gained a pooled 0.056 AUC (95% CI 0.017-0.090). Of 48 studies, 47 were at high or unclear risk of bias, only four assessed the calibration slope, and no model has evidence of clinical impact. The certainty of the pooled evidence is low to very low; the gains that survive validation came from staging predictions to decision points and local calibration, not deeper architectures. We provide a TRIPOD+AI-mapped checklist, a benchmark specification and a research agenda.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Optimizing Recourse Under Predictive Multiplicity
Using Transformers for Teaching and Learning via Symbolic Distillation of Neural A-life Agents
Timing is Everything: Inferring Temporal Membership in Continually Updated Models
TriAttention: Unified Sparse Mixed-Precision Attention for Long-Context LLM Inference
Unsupervised Neural Operators for Rotating Relativistic Stars: High-Fidelity Equation of State Inference and Pulsar Spin Evolution at Scale
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.