Factors Associated with In Vitro Fertilization Live Birth Outcome: A Comparison of Different Classification Methods

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Department of Endocrinology and Female Infertility, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Centre, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of MBA, Payame Noor Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

4 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

5 Department of Medical Ethics and Law, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Centre, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

6 Reproductive Epidemiology Research Centre, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran


Background: In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a useful assisted reproductive technology to achieve pregnancy in infertile
couples. However, it is very important to optimize the success rate after IVF by controlling for its influencing factors.
This study aims to classify successful deliveries after IVF according to couples’ characteristics and available data on
oocytes, sperm, and embryos using several classification methods.

Materials and Methods: This historical cohort study was conducted in a referral infertility centre located in
Tehran, Iran. The patients’ demographic and clinical variables for 6071 cycles during March 21, 2011 to March
20, 2014 were collected. We used six different machine learning approaches including support vector machine
(SVM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), naïve Bayes (NB),
and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to predict successful delivery. The results of the performed methods were
compared using accuracy tools.

Results: The rate of successful delivery was 81.2% among 4930 cycles. The total accuracy of the results exposed RF
had the best performance among the six approaches (ACC=0.81). Regarding the importance of variables, total number
of embryos, number of injected oocytes, cause of infertility, female age, and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) were
the most important factors predicting successful delivery.

Conclusion: A successful delivery following IVF in infertile individuals is considerably affected by the number of
embryos, number of injected oocytes, cause of infertility, female age, and PCOS.


1. Somigliana E, Vigano P, Busnelli A, Paffoni A, Vegetti W, Vercellini P. Repeated implantation failure at the crossroad between statistics, clinics and over-diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018; 36(1): 32-38.
2. Wade JJ, MacLachlan V, Kovacs G. The success rate of IVF has significantly improved over the last decade. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 55(5): 473-476.
3. Vaegter KK, Lakic TG, Olovsson M, Berglund L, Brodin T, Holte J. Which factors are most predictive for live birth after in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments? Analysis of 100 prospectively recorded variables in 8,400 IVF/ICSI single-embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(3): 641-648. e642.
4. Azmoudeh A, Shahraki Z, Hoseini F, Akbari-Asbagh F, Davari-Tanha F, Mortazavi F. In vitro fertilization success and associated factors: a prospective cohort study. Int J Women's Health Reprod Sci. 2018; 6(3): 350-355.
5. Gunderson S, Jungheim ES, Kallen CB, Omurtag K. Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training. Fertil Res Pract. 2020; 6(1): 1-6.
6. Al-Abbudi S. Major depressive disorder association with unsuccessful in-vitro fertilization (IVF) of primary infertile women. International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review. 2019; 10(4): 20717-20725.
7. Guh R, Wu T, Weng SP. Integrating genetic algorithm and decision tree learning for assistance in predicting in vitro fertilizationoutcomes. Expert Syst Appl. 2011; 38(4): 4437-4449.
8. Güvenir HA, Misirli G, Dilbaz S, Ozdegirmenci O, Demir B, Dilbaz B. Estimating the chance of success in IVF treatment using a ranking algorithm. Medi Biol Eng Comput. 2015; 53(9): 911-920.
9. Hafiz P, Nematollahi M, Boostani R, Namvar Jahromi B. Predicting implantation outcome of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection using data mining techniques. Int J Fertil Steril. 2017; 11(3): 184-190.
10. Blank C WR, Wildeboer RR, DeCroo I, Tilleman K, Weyers B, de Sutter P, et al. Prediction of implantation after blastocyst transfer in in vitro fertilization: a machine-learning perspective. Fertil Steril. 2019; 111(2): 318-326.
11. van der Ploeg T, Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. Modern modelling techniques are data hungry: a simulation study for predicting dichotomous endpoints. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14(1): 137.
12. Sanchez-Pinto LN, Venable LR, Fahrenbach J, Churpek MM: Comparison of variable selection methods for clinical predictive modeling. Int J Med Inform.2018; 116: 10-17.
13. Tapak L, Mahjub H, Hamidi O, Poorolajal J. Real-data comparison of data mining methods in prediction of diabetes in Iran. Healthcare Inform Res. 2013; 19(3): 177-185.
14. Meyer D, Leisch F, Hornik K. The support vector machine under test. Neurocomputing. 2003; 55(1-2): 169-186.
15. Amini P, Ahmadinia H, Poorolajal J, Amiri MM. Evaluating the high risk groups for suicide: a comparison of logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree and artificial neural network. Iran J Public Health. 2016; 45(9): 1179-1187.
16. Raef B, Ferdousi R. A review of machine learning approaches in assisted reproductive technologies. Acta Inform Med. 2019; 27(3): 205.
17. Uyar A, Bener A, Ciray HN. Predictive modeling of implantation outcome in an in vitro fertilization setting: an application of machine learning methods. Med Decis Making. 2015; 35(6): 714-725.
18. Hassan MR, Al-Insaif S, Hossain MI, Kamruzzaman J. A machine learning approach for prediction of pregnancy outcome following IVF treatment. Neural Comput Appl. 2020; 32(7): 2283-2297.
19. Bartmann AK, Junior MF, de Barros GP, de Paula LS, Bettini NR. The number of embryos obtained can offset the age factor in IVF resultsaccording to an artificial intelligence system. Womans Health Gynecol. 2016; 2(5): 1-5.
20. Roberts S, Hirst WM, Brison DR, Vail A. Embryo and uterine influences on IVF outcomes: an analysis of a UK multi-centre cohort. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(11): 2792-2802.
21. Almasi-Hashiani A, Mansournia MA, Sepidarkish M, Vesali S, Ghaheri A, Esmailzadeh A, et al. Comparison of in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle outcome in patients with and without polycystic ovary syndrome: a modified poisson regression model. Int J Fertil Steril. 2018; 11(4): 309-313.
22. Almasi-Hashiani A, Ghaheri A, Omani Samani R. Determinants of the grade a embryos in infertile women; zero-inflated regression model. Cell J. 2017; 19(3): 506-511.
23. Zorn B, Virant-Klun I, Drobni S, Šinkovec J, Meden-Vrtovec H. Male and female factors that influence ICSI outcome in azoospermia or aspermia. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 18(2): 168-176.
24. Women's NCCf, Health Cs. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. London: RCOG Press; 2004.
25. Nelson SM, Lawlor DA. Predicting live birth, preterm delivery, and low birth weight in infants born from in vitro fertilisation: a prospective study of 144,018 treatment cycles. PLoS Med. 2011; 8(1): e1000386.
26. Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, Mollison J. Factors associated with failed treatment: an analysis of 121,744 women embarking on their first IVF cycles. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12): e82249.
27. Elizur SE, Lerner-Geva L, Levron J, Shulman A, Bider D, Dor J. Factors predicting IVF treatment outcome: a multivariate analysis of 5310 cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 10(5): 645-649.
28. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012; 99(1): 44-46.
29. Nazemian Z, Esfandiari N, Javed M, Casper RF: T The effect of age on in vitro fertilization outcome: Is too young possible? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011; 28(2): 101-106.
30. Yan J, Wu K, Tang R, Ding L, Chen ZJ. Effect of maternal age on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Sci China Life Sci. 2012; 55(8): 694-698.
31. Beydoun HA, Stadtmauer L, Beydoun MA, Russell H, Zhao Y, Oehninger S. Polycystic ovary syndrome, body mass index and outcomes of assisted reproductive technologies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 18(6): 856-863.
32. Ryan A, Wang S, Alvero R, Polotsky AJ. Prolonged gonadotropin stimulation for assisted reproductive technology cycles is associated with decreased pregnancy rates for all women except for women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014; 31(7): 837-842.
33. Nafiye Y, Sevtap K, Muammer D, Emre O, Senol K, Leyla M. The effect of serum and intrafollicular insulin resistance parameters and homocysteine levels of nonobese, nonhyperandrogenemic polycystic ovary syndrome patients on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril.2010; 93(6): 1864-1869.
34. Okohue JE, Onuh SO, Ikimalo JI. Comparison of IVF/ICSI outcome in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome or tubal factor infertility. Niger J Clin Pract. 2013; 16(2): 207-210.
35. Urman B, Tiras B, Yakin K. Assisted reproduction in the treatment of polycystic ovarian syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004; 8(4): 419-430.
36. Sheng Y, Lu G, Liu J, Liang X, Ma Y, Zhang X, et al. Effect of body mass index on the outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in Chinese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017; 34(1): 61-70.
37. Cakiroglu Y, Doger E, Vural F, Kopuk SY, Vural B. Impact of insulin resistance and obesity on intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes in young women with polycystıc ovary syndrome. North Clin Istanb.2017; 4(3): 218-224.
38. Li J, Liu D, Wang J, Deng H, Luo X, Shen X, et al. Meta-analysis identifies candidate key genes in endometrium as predictive biomarkers for clinical pregnancy in IVF. Oncotarget. 2015; 8(60): 102428.
39. van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Limpens J, Bossuyt PMM, Repping S, van Der Veen F. Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2010; 16(6): 577-589.
40. Strobl C, Boulesteix AL, Zeileis A, Hothorn T. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007, 8(1): 25.