External validation and calibration of IVFpredict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation cycles.

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 recen...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andrew D A C Smith, Kate Tilling, Debbie A Lawlor, Scott M Nelson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4390202?pdf=render
id doaj-670c87b08c424360899e7f71c06b9475
record_format Article
spelling doaj-670c87b08c424360899e7f71c06b94752020-11-25T02:15:27ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01104e012135710.1371/journal.pone.0121357External validation and calibration of IVFpredict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation cycles.Andrew D A C SmithKate TillingDebbie A LawlorScott M NelsonAccurately 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.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.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.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4390202?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andrew D A C Smith
Kate Tilling
Debbie A Lawlor
Scott M Nelson
spellingShingle Andrew D A C Smith
Kate Tilling
Debbie A Lawlor
Scott M Nelson
External validation and calibration of IVFpredict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation cycles.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Andrew D A C Smith
Kate Tilling
Debbie A Lawlor
Scott M Nelson
author_sort Andrew D A C Smith
title 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_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_sort external validation and calibration of ivfpredict: a national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation cycles.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2015-01-01
description 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.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.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.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4390202?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT andrewdacsmith externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles
AT katetilling externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles
AT debbiealawlor externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles
AT scottmnelson externalvalidationandcalibrationofivfpredictanationalprospectivecohortstudyof130960invitrofertilisationcycles
_version_ 1724896322509602816