Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

An Integrated Optimization and Deep Learning Pipeline for Predicting Live Birth Success in IVF Using Feature Optimization and Transformer-Based Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A PSO-optimized TabTransformer predicts IVF live birth with 99.50% accuracy, the paper claims.

desk verdict The 99.5% IVF live-birth accuracy is a label-leakage artifact: PSO-selected features include delivery dates and live-birth counts, so the paper's central claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19696 v1 pith:EGFY2BKY submitted 2024-12-27 cs.AI

Arezoo Borji , Hossam Haick , Birgit Pohn , Antonia Graf , Jana Zakall , S M Ragib Shahriar Islam , Gernot Kronreif , Daniel Kovatchki
show 2 more authors
Heinz Strohmer Sepideh Hatamikia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords invitrofertilizationlivebirthpredictionparticleswarmoptimizationTabTransformerfeatureselectionHFEAdatasettargetleakageattention
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish that an integrated pipeline—particle swarm optimization for feature selection followed by a TabTransformer classifier—can predict live birth after IVF almost perfectly from a national fertility registry. The reported result is 99.50% accuracy and 99.96% AUC on 115,012 HFEA treatment records from 2010 to 2018, beating random forests, decision trees, PCA-based inputs, and a custom transformer. If the claim held, it would mean registry-only data is sufficient for near-certain outcome prediction, a dramatic improvement over prior models that reached roughly 96% accuracy or AUCs in the 0.63–0.79 range. The paper's own feature table, however, shows that the optimized 45-feature set includes delivery dates, gestational weeks, and counts of previous live births—fields that record the outcome itself. That makes the load-bearing assumption the legitimacy of using outcome-derived registry fields as predictors.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-stage pipeline. First, binary particle swarm optimization searches feature subsets by minimizing $C = -(F1 - P \cdot N)$, where $F1$ is the F1-score of a logistic regression trained on the selected features, $P$ is a penalty weight, and $N$ is the number of selected features. Second, a TabTransformer embeds categorical variables, concatenates them with normalized numerical features, and applies multi-head self-attention with four heads followed by feed-forward layers to output a live-birth probability. The paper claims this combination captures feature interactions and yields the reported near-perfect metrics.

What would settle it

Re-run the PSO plus TabTransformer pipeline on the same 115,012 records with all outcome-related fields removed, including delivery dates, gestational weeks, and live-birth counts, using the same 10-fold cross-validation; if accuracy and AUC fall far below 99.50% and 99.96%, the original result is explained by target leakage, while if they remain near those levels the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that combining binary particle swarm optimization with a TabTransformer produces a model that predicts live birth success in IVF with 99.50% accuracy, 99.6% precision, 99.5% recall, 99.5% F1-score, and an AUC of 99.96% (reported as 0.99 in their results table), outperforming all seven alternative pipelines tested on the same HFEA data. They attribute this to PSO's ability to select a compact, informative feature subset of 45 features and to the TabTransformer's learned categorical embeddings and multi-head self-attention, which capture interactions between clinical, demographic, and procedural variables that traditional classifiers miss. The paper positions this as the first application of transformer-based models to IVF live-birth prediction and as a clinically applicable tool for personalized fertility treatment.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline treats outcome-derived registry fields—delivery dates, gestational weeks, and counts of previous live births—as legitimate input features, even though they describe the birth event the model is supposed to predict.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the accuracy of 99.50% holds, a registry-only model could counsel IVF patients on expected live-birth chances with near certainty.
  • The comparison suggests PSO-based feature selection is substantially better than PCA for this tabular prediction task, since every PSO classifier outperformed its PCA counterpart.
  • Transformer-based models beat random forest and decision tree on every metric, implying attention mechanisms add predictive value for IVF registry data.
  • A clinically deployed version of this pipeline would need only the 45 selected fields, making data collection and interpretation simpler than with the full 94-feature registry.
  • The result would set a new benchmark on the HFEA dataset, surpassing the 96.35% accuracy of the previous best model on the same 2010–2018 data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the selected feature set includes 'Heart one delivery date', 'Heart two delivery date', weeks-of-gestation fields, and counts of prior live births, the near-perfect scores most plausibly reflect the model reading the outcome from the input; excluding those fields would likely drop performance to the range of earlier studies, not 99.5%.
  • A natural test of the pipeline's genuine predictive value is to rerun PSO inside the cross-validation loop on a feature set purged of all outcome-derived and post-treatment fields; the paper reports no such leakage-free experiment.
  • The attention weights of the TabTransformer could be audited to see whether the model is keying on delivery dates and live-birth histories, turning the claimed clinical tool into a diagnostic of data quality.
  • If the leakage-free accuracy falls to the clinical range, the transferable contribution is not the 99.5% number but the pipeline design—PSO selection plus TabTransformer—which could still be evaluated honestly on truly pre-treatment features.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an AI pipeline for predicting live birth success after IVF from the 2010–2018 HFEA registry. It compares PCA- and PSO-based feature selection, combined with random forest, decision tree, a custom transformer, and a TabTransformer. The authors report that PSO + TabTransformer achieves 99.50% accuracy, 99.6% precision, 99.5% recall, 99.5% F1, and 0.99 AUC, and they interpret this as evidence that transformer-based models, when combined with optimization-based feature selection, can almost perfectly predict live birth from registry data. The central methodological steps are feature selection (PSO with a fitness based on logistic regression F1 minus a penalty), model training with 10-fold cross-validation, and evaluation with standard metrics. The authors also compare their results with prior work using the same HFEA dataset, positioning their accuracy improvement as the main contribution.

Significance. If the reported performance were valid, a registry-only model predicting live birth at 99.5% accuracy would be a substantial practical contribution, since most prior work on HFEA data reports accuracies in the range roughly 0.73–0.96 and AUCs of 0.63–0.79. The paper also makes a methodological claim, that combining PSO feature selection with TabTransformer is a novel and effective pipeline for tabular IVF outcome prediction. However, the central performance claim is not supported by the reported experiments because the feature sets include variables that are only observable after, or that directly encode, the outcome. The paper does not report any ablation excluding these outcome-derived fields, and it does not use a patient-level split, so the headline accuracy is most plausibly a mechanical artifact of label leakage rather than genuine predictive skill. The framework and model architecture themselves are reasonable to explore, but the experimental design in this manuscript does not provide evidence for the claimed clinical prediction capability.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The central claim of 99.50% accuracy and 0.99 AUC for PSO + TabTransformer is invalidated by feature leakage. Section 3.2 and Table 6 show that the PSO-selected feature set includes 'Heart one delivery date', 'Heart two delivery date', 'Heart one week's gestation', 'Heart two weeks gestation', 'Total number of live births - conceived through IVF', and 'Total number of live births - conceived through IVF or DI'. A delivery date and gestational weeks are known only after a live birth, and prior live-birth counts directly encode the outcome label. Feeding these variables to the model makes near-perfect accuracy a mechanical consequence of reading the answer from the features, not a clinically meaningful prediction. No experiment in the paper removes these fields, so the headline result has no stated basis as a live-birth prediction.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Section 3.1] The evaluation uses 10-fold cross-validation, but the paper does not state that folds are split at the patient level. HFEA data contain multiple cycles per patient, and the outcome of repeated cycles from the same patient are strongly correlated. Without a patient-level split, cycles from the same patient can appear in both training and validation folds, inflating all reported metrics. The authors need to show a patient-stratified split and report results under that split, or explicitly justify why cycle-level independence is clinically appropriate for a prediction intended to support personalized fertility treatment.
  3. [Table 6 and Section 3.2] The feature-selection procedure itself, as described, does not exclude outcome-derived fields. The PSO fitness in Algorithm 1 and Equation (1) uses a logistic regression F1-score over the selected features, which will retain outcome-derived fields because they trivially predict the target. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis or ablation with a feature subset restricted to pre-treatment or pre-transfer information. Without such an ablation, the reported 99.50% accuracy cannot be attributed to the model's ability to learn meaningful clinical interactions; it is more directly attributable to the inclusion of post-outcome variables.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Table 5] The apparent monotone improvement from traditional models (91–93.5%) to transformer models (95.5–99.5%) is not informative about model quality because all methods use the same leakage-prone feature space. For example, PCA + Decision Tree also has access to the outcome-derived variables, and the fact that TabTransformer achieves 99.5% while PCA+DT achieves 91% likely reflects the capacity of the transformer to exploit the leaked variables, not a generalizable advantage in IVF outcome prediction. The paper should compare all models on a leakage-free feature set; otherwise, the comparative claim in Table 5 is not a fair test of either feature selection or model architecture.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3.5 and Table 2] There is an inconsistency between the transformer model input dimension described in Table 1 (45 selected features) and Table 2 (input_dim = 40 features). The paper should reconcile these numbers and state which feature count was actually used.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The position update rule for the binary PSO is incompletely written: the text states "Update position using a sigmoid function" but does not explicitly state the thresholding step that maps the probability to a binary value, and the notation for the velocity update has a typo in the random coefficients (the text defines r2 twice instead of r1 and r2).
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table 6] Table 6 contains two entries with the same feature name 'Total number of live births - conceived through IVF or DI' under different categories (Patient History and Outcome), and the typo 'mbryos stored' for 'Embryos stored'. The categories and feature names should be made consistent.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4] The paper states that the model was built with 'balanced datasets to address class imbalance', but the methodology section does not describe any resampling, class weighting, or balancing step. This claim is unsupported by the presented methods.
  5. [Table 7] The comparison in Table 7 reports the AUC for the proposed model as '99.96%', while Table 5 reports AUC = 0.99. The units and decimal places are inconsistent; the authors should report AUC consistently as a fraction or percentage.
  6. [Section 2.1.1] The text says the initial dataset has 94 features, but Section 2.3.5 and Table 1 refer to 45 selected features, while Table 2 says 40 features, and Section 2.3.6 says the input dimension is the number of selected numerical features. The paper should clarify the number of original features, the number retained after preprocessing, and the exact dimension given to each model.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 9.0 of 10

The headline 99.50% accuracy / 99.96% AUC is not an independent prediction: the PSO-selected feature set in Table 6 contains delivery dates, gestational weeks, and live-birth counts, so the model is given the outcome it claims to predict.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1.1, 'The dataset used']
    "Key features encompass patient-specific details such as age at the time of treatment, number of prior IVF pregnancies, live birth outcomes, and specific infertility causes (e.g., tubal disease, ovulatory disorders, or male infertility factors)."

    The paper's target is 'live birth occurrence' as a binary outcome, and the same dataset description lists 'live birth outcomes' among the key features used for prediction. A model that is given live-birth outcome values as input and then predicts live-birth occurrence has the answer supplied by the input. The reported performance is therefore a mechanical consequence of including the target in the feature set, and the paper reports no experiment that removes these outcome-derived fields.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.2, Table 6 (PSO-selected features)]
    "Heart one delivery date Outcome The delivery date of the first baby (if multiple births occurred). ... Total number of live births - conceived through IVF or DI Outcome Total number of live births achieved from either IVF or donor insemination cycles."

    The best-performing PSO + TabTransformer model is trained on a 45-feature set that includes 'Heart one delivery date', 'Heart two delivery date', 'Heart one week's gestation', 'Heart two weeks gestation', and a live-birth count categorized as Outcome. Delivery date and gestational week are only known after a live birth, and live-birth counts directly encode the target 'live birth occurrence'. The reported accuracy of 99.50% and AUC of 99.96% therefore reduce to reading the label from the input by construction; no leakage-free ablation or patient-level split is reported.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: PSO selects features (Section 2.3.1), the TabTransformer is trained on those features, and metrics are reported (Section 3.1). The self-citations in the paper, references [26] and [31], are used for standard topics such as random-forest feature importance and evaluation metrics and are not load-bearing; there is no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz-by-citation. However, the feature-construction step is circular. Table 6 shows that the PSO-selected feature set includes outcome variables: delivery dates, gestational weeks, and live-birth counts categorized as Outcome. These values are determined only after the live-birth event or directly count live births, so feeding them to a classifier and reporting near-perfect accuracy is label leakage, not independent prediction. The paper does not report any experiment that excludes these fields, nor a temporal or patient-level split that would prevent the same patient's cycles from appearing in both training and test folds. Consequently, the headline claim is forced by the input definition rather than by the predictive model. This is a self-definitional feature/target overlap, not merely a methodological imperfection, and it accounts for the near-perfect metrics.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a few fitted hyperparameters and, most importantly, on the unstated and invalid assumption that outcome-related registry fields are legitimate predictors. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • PSO penalty weight P = not reported
    Appears in the PSO cost function C = -(F1 - P*N) in Section 2.3.1. It controls the trade-off between F1-score and the number of selected features, and its value directly affects the 45-feature subset, but the value is not given.
  • TabTransformer learning rate = 0.0000001
    Set via grid search in Section 2.3.6 and Table 4. This is a fitted hyperparameter that affects training and final performance.
  • TabTransformer dropout rate = 0.2
    Grid-searched hyperparameter in Section 2.3.6. Listed in Table 4.
  • TabTransformer L2 regularization strength = 0.01
    Grid-searched hyperparameter in Section 2.3.6. Listed in Table 4.
  • Transformer model learning rate = 0.000001
    Grid-searched hyperparameter in Section 2.3.5. It controls convergence of the custom transformer model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The HFEA registry data are recorded accurately and completely enough for predictive modeling.
    Section 2.1.1 describes the dataset but provides no validation of data quality beyond the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
  • domain assumption Random 10-fold splitting of cycles is a valid evaluation protocol.
    Section 2.4 applies 10-fold cross-validation without grouping by patient. Since HFEA contains multiple cycles per patient, this risks patient-level leakage, and the paper never addresses it.
  • ad hoc to paper Outcome-derived fields can be used as input features without invalidating the prediction task.
    Section 3.2 and Table 6 include "Heart one delivery date", gestational weeks, and live birth counts as PSO-selected features. This is the load-bearing leakage assumption.
  • domain assumption Class imbalance was handled by a balanced dataset design.
    The discussion in Section 4 mentions balanced datasets to address class imbalance, but no balancing procedure is described in Sections 2.2 or 2.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Integrated Optimization and Deep Learning Pipeline for Predicting Live Birth Success in IVF Using Feature Optimization and Transformer-Based Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGFY2BKY

@misc{pith2026241219696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Integrated Optimization and Deep Learning Pipeline for Predicting Live Birth Success in IVF Using Feature Optimization and Transformer-Based Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGFY2BKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19696}
}
read the original abstract

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a widely utilized assisted reproductive technology, yet predicting its success remains challenging due to the multifaceted interplay of clinical, demographic, and procedural factors. This study develops a robust artificial intelligence (AI) pipeline aimed at predicting live birth outcomes in IVF treatments. The pipeline uses anonymized data from 2010 to 2018, obtained from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). We evaluated the prediction performance of live birth success as a binary outcome (success/failure) by integrating different feature selection methods, such as principal component analysis (PCA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO), with different traditional machine learning-based classifiers including random forest (RF) and decision tree, as well as deep learning-based classifiers including custom transformer-based model and a tab transformer model with an attention mechanism. Our research demonstrated that the best performance was achieved by combining PSO for feature selection with the TabTransformer-based deep learning model, yielding an accuracy of 99.50% and an AUC of 99.96%, highlighting its significant performance to predict live births. This study establishes a highly accurate AI pipeline for predicting live birth outcomes in IVF, demonstrating its potential to enhance personalized fertility treatments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Step-by-step process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of preprocessing steps and classification methods used in this paper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the proposed tab transformer m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the binary classification results in this paper for all eight experiments and using five performance metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score and AUC. 3.2.Analyzing details of the best performing model As mentioned in Section 3.1, the be…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Morse, K. (2022). ni ve rs ity of e To w n ve rs ity e To w, 213

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Liu, L., Liang, H., Yang, J., Shen, F., Chen, J., & Ao, L. (2024). Clinical data-based modeling of IVF live birth outcome and its application. Reproductive biology and endocrinology, 22(1), 1–12. DOI:10.1186/s12958-024-01253-3

    work page doi:10.1186/s12958-024-01253-3 2024

  3. [3]

    Uyar, A., Sengul, Y., & Bener, A. (2015). Emerging technologies for improving embryo selection: a systematic review. Advanced health care technologies, 55. DOI:10.2147/ahct.s71272

    work page doi:10.2147/ahct.s71272 2015

  4. [4]

    C., Voliotis, M., Tsaneva -Atanasova, K., Kelsey, T

    Hanassab, S., Abbara, A., Yeung, A. C., Voliotis, M., Tsaneva -Atanasova, K., Kelsey, T. W., … Dhillo, W. S. (2024). The prospect of artificial intelligence to personalize assisted reproductive technology. Npj digital medicine, 7(1). DOI:10.1038/s41746-024-01006-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01006-x 2024

  5. [5]

    J., Chaudhari, K., Acharya, N., Shrivastava, D., & Muneeba, S

    Patel, D. J., Chaudhari, K., Acharya, N., Shrivastava, D., & Muneeba, S. (2024). Artificial Intelligence in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Transforming Care and Outcomes. Cureus, 16(7). DOI:10.7759/cureus.64725

    work page doi:10.7759/cureus.64725 2024

  6. [6]

    Vassakis, K., Petrakis, E., & Kopanakis, I. (2018). Big data analytics: Applications, prospects and challenges. Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies , 10, 3 –20. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-67925-9_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67925-9_1 2018

  7. [7]

    Ueno, S., Berntsen, J., Ito, M., Okimura, T., & Kato, K. (2022). Correlation between an annotation- free embryo scoring system based on deep learning and live birth/neonatal outcomes after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer: a single -centre, large-cohort retrospective study. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 39(9), 2089–2099. DOI:10...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10815-022-02562-5 2022

  8. [8]

    Coticchio, G., Lagalla, C., Taggi, M., Cimadomo, D., & Rienzi, L. (2024). Embryo multinucleation: detection, possible origins, and implications for treatment. Human reproduction, 39(11), 2392 –

    work page 2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    K., Barrie, A., … Coomarasamy, A

    Bamford, T., Easter, C., Montgomery, S., Smith, R., Dhillon -Smith, R. K., Barrie, A., … Coomarasamy, A. (2023). A comparison of 12 machine learning models developed to predict ploidy, using a morphokinetic meta -dataset of 8147 embryos. Human reproduction , 38(4), 569 –581. D...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Uyar, A., Bener, A., & Ciray, H. N. (2015). Predictive Modeling of Implantation Outcome in an in Vitro Fertilization Setting. Medical decision making , 35(6), 714 –725. DOI:10.1177/0272989X14535984

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Giscard d’Estaing, S., Labrune, E., Forcellini, M., Edel, C., Salle, B., Lornage, J., & Benchaib, M. (2021). A machine learning system with reinforcement capacity for predicting the fate of an ART embryo. Systems biology in reproductive medicine , 67(1), 64 –78. DOI:10.1080/19...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Huang, B., Zheng, S., Ma, B., Yang, Y., Zhang, S., & Jin, L. (2022). Using deep learning to predict the outcome of live birth from more than 10,000 embryo data. BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 22(1), 1–7. DOI:10.1186/s12884-021-04373-5

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Kandula, H., Thirumalaraju, P., Kanakasabapathy, M

    Jiang, V. S., Kandula, H., Thirumalaraju, P., Kanakasabapathy, M. K., Cherouveim, P., Souter, I., … Shafiee, H. (2023). The use of voting ensembles to improve the accuracy of deep neural networks as a non -invasive method to predict embryo ploidy stat us. Journal of assisted r...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    F., & Karstoft, H

    Kragh, M. F., & Karstoft, H. (2021). Embryo selection with artificial intelligence: how to evaluate and compare methods? Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics , 38(7), 1675 –1689. DOI:10.1007/s10815-021-02254-6

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Zhang, Y., Shen, L., Yin, X., & Chen, W. (2022). Live -Birth Prediction of Natural-Cycle In Vitro Fertilization Using 57,558 Linked Cycle Records: A Machine Learning Perspective. Frontiers in endocrinology, 13(April), 1–12. DOI:10.3389/fendo.2022.838087

    2022

  8. [16]

    J., Steyerberg, E

    McLernon, D. J., Steyerberg, E. W., Te Velde, E. R., Lee, A. J., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation: Population based study of linked cycle data from 113 873 w omen. BMJ (online) , 355. ...

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Christensen, A

    Jones, C. A., Christensen, A. L., Salihu, H., Carpenter, W., Petrozzino, J., Abrams, E., … Keith, L. G. (2011). Prediction of individual probabilities of livebirth and multiple birth events following in vitro fertilization (IVF): A new outcomes couns elling tool for IVF provid...

    2011

  10. [18]

    D., Silvestri, G., Gordon, T., & Griffin, D

    Sanders, K. D., Silvestri, G., Gordon, T., & Griffin, D. K. (2021). Analysis of IVF live birth outcomes with and without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT -A): UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority data collection 2016 –2018. Journal of assisted rep...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Al -Insaif, S., Hossain, M

    Hassan, M. R., Al -Insaif, S., Hossain, M. I., & Kamruzzaman, J. (2020). A machine learning approach for prediction of pregnancy outcome following IVF treatment. Neural computing and applications, 32(7), 2283–2297. DOI:10.1007/s00521-018-3693-9

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Milewski, R. (2010). the Usage of Margin-Based Feature Selection Algorithm in Ivf Icsi / Et, 21(34), 35–46

    2010

  13. [21]

    A., Khanjani, S., Javanmardi, S., Bayat, B., Naderi, Z., & Hajiyavand, A

    Sadegh-Zadeh, S. A., Khanjani, S., Javanmardi, S., Bayat, B., Naderi, Z., & Hajiyavand, A. M. (2024). Catalyzing IVF outcome prediction: exploring advanced machine learning paradigms for enhanced success rate prognostication. Frontiers in artificial intelligence , 7(November),...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Theng, D., & Bhoyar, K. K. (2024). Feature selection techniques for machine learning: a survey of more than two decades of research . , 66 Knowledge and Information Systems (Vol. 66). Springer London

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sowan, B., Eshtay, M., Dahal, K., Qattous, H., & Zhang, L. (2023). Hybrid PSO feature selection- based association classification approach for breast cancer detection. Neural computing and applications, 35(7), 5291–5317. DOI:10.1007/s00521-022-07950-7

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Alaraidh, I

    Hammoumi, D., Al-Aizari, H. S., Alaraidh, I. A., Okla, M. K., Assal, M. E., Al -Aizari, A. R., … Bejjaji, Z. (2024). Seasonal Variations and Assessment of Surface Water Quality Using Water Quality Index (WQI) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA): A Case Study. Sustainability...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Zhou, L., Xu, D., Yuan, Y., & Wang, L. (2024). Research on transformer fault intelligent diagnosis technology based on improved random forest algorithm. Journal of physics: conference series , 2728(1). DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/2728/1/012056

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Borji, A., Seifi, A., & Hejazi, T. H. (2023). An efficient method for detection of Alzheimer’s disease using high -dimensional PET scan images. Intelligent decision technologies , 17(3). DOI:10.3233/IDT-220315

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Charbuty, B., & Abdulazeez, A. (2021). Classification Based on Decision Tree Algorithm for Machine Learning. Journal of applied science and technology trends , 2(01), 20 –28. DOI:10.38094/jastt20165

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Tabinda Kokab, S., Asghar, S., & Naz, S. (2022). Transformer-based deep learning models for the sentiment analysis of social media data. Array, 14(October 2021), 100157. DOI:10.1016/j.array.2022.100157

    2022

  21. [29]

    N., … Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., … Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems , 2017- Decem(Nips), 5999–6009

    2017

  22. [30]

    Alzahrani, A. I. A., Al -Rasheed, A., Ksibi, A., Ayadi, M., Asiri, M. M., & Zakariah, M. (2022). Anomaly Detection in Fog Computing Architectures Using Custom Tab Transformer for Internet of Things. Electronics (switzerland), 11(23), 1–20. DOI:10.3390/electronics11234017

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Borji, A., Hejazi, T.-H., & Seifi, A. (2024). Introducing an ensemble method for the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease through the analysis of PET scan images, 1–22

    2024

  24. [2399]

    DOI:10.1093/humrep/deae186

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.