Comparison of predictive models for cumulative live birth rate after treatment with ART

Can a machine learning model better predict the cumulative live birth rate for a couple after intrauterine insemination or embryo transfer than Cox regression based on their personal characteristics? Retrospective cohort study conducted in two French infertility centres (Créteil and Tenon Hospitals) between 2012 and 2019, including 1819 and 1226 couples at Créteil and Tenon, respectively. Two models were applied: a Cox regression, which is almost exclusively used in assisted reproductive technology (ART) predictive modelling, and a tree ensemble-based model using XGBoost implementation. Internal validations were performed on each hospital dataset separately; an external validation was then carried out on the Tenon Hospital's population. The two populations were significantly different, with Tenon having more severe cases than Créteil, although internal validations show comparable results (C-index of 60% for both populations). As for the external validation, the XGBoost model stands out as being more stable than Cox regression, with the latter having a higher performance loss (C-index of 60% and 58%, respectively). The explicability method indicates that the XGBoost model relies strongly on features such as the ages of a couple, causes of infertility, and the woman's body mass index or infertility duration, which is consistent with the ART literature about risk factors. Overall performances are still relatively modest, which is coherent with all reported ART predictive models. Explicability-based methods would allow access to new knowledge, to gain a greater comprehension of which characteristics and interactions really influence a couple's journey. These models can be used by practitioners and patients to make better informed decisions about performing ART.