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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Andrew D. A. C., Tilling, Kate, Lawlor, Debbie A., Nelson, Scott M.
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