Cargando…
External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles
BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting the probability of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is important for patients, healthcare providers and policy makers. Two prediction models (Templeton and IVFpredict) have been previously developed from UK data and are widely used internationally. Th...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390202/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25853703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121357 |
_version_ | 1782365655762206720 |
---|---|
author | Smith, Andrew D. A. C. Tilling, Kate Lawlor, Debbie A. Nelson, Scott M. |
author_facet | Smith, Andrew D. A. C. Tilling, Kate Lawlor, Debbie A. Nelson, Scott M. |
author_sort | Smith, Andrew D. A. C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting the probability of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is important for patients, healthcare providers and policy makers. Two prediction models (Templeton and IVFpredict) have been previously developed from UK data and are widely used internationally. The more recent of these, IVFpredict, was shown to have greater predictive power in the development dataset. The aim of this study was external validation of the two models and comparison of their predictive ability. METHODS AND FINDINGS: 130,960 IVF cycles undertaken in the UK in 2008–2010 were used to validate and compare the Templeton and IVFpredict models. Discriminatory power was calculated using the area under the receiver-operator curve and calibration assessed using a calibration plot and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. The scaled modified Brier score, with measures of reliability and resolution, were calculated to assess overall accuracy. Both models were compared after updating for current live birth rates to ensure that the average observed and predicted live birth rates were equal. The discriminative power of both methods was comparable: the area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.628 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.625–0.631) for IVFpredict and 0.616 (95% CI: 0.613–0.620) for the Templeton model. IVFpredict had markedly better calibration and higher diagnostic accuracy, with calibration plot intercept of 0.040 (95% CI: 0.017–0.063) and slope of 0.932 (95% CI: 0.839–1.025) compared with 0.080 (95% CI: 0.044–0.117) and 1.419 (95% CI: 1.149–1.690) for the Templeton model. Both models underestimated the live birth rate, but this was particularly marked in the Templeton model. Updating the models to reflect improvements in live birth rates since the models were developed enhanced their performance, but IVFpredict remained superior. CONCLUSION: External validation in a large population cohort confirms IVFpredict has superior discrimination and calibration for informing patients, clinicians and healthcare policy makers of the probability of live birth following IVF. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4390202 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43902022015-04-21 External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles Smith, Andrew D. A. C. Tilling, Kate Lawlor, Debbie A. Nelson, Scott M. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting the probability of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is important for patients, healthcare providers and policy makers. Two prediction models (Templeton and IVFpredict) have been previously developed from UK data and are widely used internationally. The more recent of these, IVFpredict, was shown to have greater predictive power in the development dataset. The aim of this study was external validation of the two models and comparison of their predictive ability. METHODS AND FINDINGS: 130,960 IVF cycles undertaken in the UK in 2008–2010 were used to validate and compare the Templeton and IVFpredict models. Discriminatory power was calculated using the area under the receiver-operator curve and calibration assessed using a calibration plot and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. The scaled modified Brier score, with measures of reliability and resolution, were calculated to assess overall accuracy. Both models were compared after updating for current live birth rates to ensure that the average observed and predicted live birth rates were equal. The discriminative power of both methods was comparable: the area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.628 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.625–0.631) for IVFpredict and 0.616 (95% CI: 0.613–0.620) for the Templeton model. IVFpredict had markedly better calibration and higher diagnostic accuracy, with calibration plot intercept of 0.040 (95% CI: 0.017–0.063) and slope of 0.932 (95% CI: 0.839–1.025) compared with 0.080 (95% CI: 0.044–0.117) and 1.419 (95% CI: 1.149–1.690) for the Templeton model. Both models underestimated the live birth rate, but this was particularly marked in the Templeton model. Updating the models to reflect improvements in live birth rates since the models were developed enhanced their performance, but IVFpredict remained superior. CONCLUSION: External validation in a large population cohort confirms IVFpredict has superior discrimination and calibration for informing patients, clinicians and healthcare policy makers of the probability of live birth following IVF. Public Library of Science 2015-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4390202/ /pubmed/25853703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121357 Text en © 2015 Smith et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Smith, Andrew D. A. C. Tilling, Kate Lawlor, Debbie A. Nelson, Scott M. External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles |
title | External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles |
title_full | External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles |
title_fullStr | External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles |
title_full_unstemmed | External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles |
title_short | External Validation and Calibration of IVFpredict: A National Prospective Cohort Study of 130,960 In Vitro Fertilisation Cycles |
title_sort | external validation and calibration of ivfpredict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation cycles |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390202/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25853703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121357 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT smithandrewdac externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles AT tillingkate externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles AT lawlordebbiea externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles AT nelsonscottm externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles |