Proof of concept and development of a couple-based machine learning model to stratify infertile patients with idiopathic infertility

Guillaume Bachelot, Rachel Lévy, Anne Bachelot, Céline Faure, Sébastien Czernichow, Charlotte Dupont, Antonin Lamazière, Alifert Collaborative Group, Isabelle Aknin, Isabelle Cedrin-Durnerin, Steven Cens, Nathalie di Clemente, Jean-Louis Guéant, Serge Hercberg, Yoann Lalatonne, Chrystèle Racine, Nathalie Sermondade, Angela Sutton, Claude Uthurriague, Jean-Philippe Wolf, Alain Favier, Guillaume Bachelot, Rachel Lévy, Anne Bachelot, Céline Faure, Sébastien Czernichow, Charlotte Dupont, Antonin Lamazière, Alifert Collaborative Group, Isabelle Aknin, Isabelle Cedrin-Durnerin, Steven Cens, Nathalie di Clemente, Jean-Louis Guéant, Serge Hercberg, Yoann Lalatonne, Chrystèle Racine, Nathalie Sermondade, Angela Sutton, Claude Uthurriague, Jean-Philippe Wolf, Alain Favier

Abstract

We aimed to develop and evaluate a machine learning model that can stratify infertile/fertile couples on the basis of their bioclinical signature helping the management of couples with unexplained infertility. Fertile and infertile couples were recruited in the ALIFERT cross-sectional case-control multicentric study between September 2009 and December 2013 (NCT01093378). The study group consisted of 97 infertile couples presenting a primary idiopathic infertility (> 12 months) from 4 French infertility centers compared with 100 fertile couples (with a spontaneously conceived child (< 2 years of age) and with time to pregnancy < 12 months) recruited from the healthy population of the areas around the infertility centers. The study group is comprised of 2 independent sets: a development set (n = 136 from 3 centers) serving to train the model and a test set (n = 61 from 1 center) used to provide an unbiased validation of the model. Our results have shown that: (i) a couple-modeling approach was more discriminant than models in which men's and women's parameters are considered separately; (ii) the most discriminating variables were anthropometric, or related to the metabolic and oxidative status; (iii) a refined model capable to stratify fertile vs. infertile couples with accuracy 73.8% was proposed after the variables selection (from 80 to 13). These influential factors (anthropometric, antioxidative, and metabolic signatures) are all modifiable by the couple lifestyle. The model proposed takes place in the management of couples with idiopathic infertility, for whom the decision-making tools are scarce. Prospective interventional studies are now needed to validate the model clinical use.Trial registration: NCT01093378 ALIFERT https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01093378?term=ALIFERT&rank=1 . Registered: March 25, 2010.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Data flow diagram for the study: model training iteration. The model was trained and tuned after variable selection on a development set originating from patients of mutiple specialized centers. Firstly the model was internaly evaluated using cross-validation. Then, a test set of couples originating from a different institution was used for an external validation. The model predictions were matched with the expected clinical output. Model training iteration (i.e. introduced externally) process was eventually performed to build a refined model with the selected features.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis models (training and evaluation) calculated from men, women and couples development sets. (A) External evaluation of men fertility status: labelled external test set observations (fertile and infertile as green and red stars, respectively) are projected on the score plots generated from fertile (green dots) and infertile (red dots) men (135 × 50) set. R2 (fit) and Q2 (prediction capability) are 0.471 and 0.322, respectively. (B) External evaluation of women fertility status: labelled external test set observations (fertile and infertile as green and red stars, respectively) are projected on the score plots generated from fertile (green dots) and infertile (red dots) women (135 × 30) development set. R2 and Q2 were 0.560 and 0.462. (C) External evaluation of couples: labelled external test set observations (fertile and infertile as green and red stars, respectively) are projected on the score plots generated from fertile (green dots) and infertile (red dots) couples (135 × 80) development set. R2 and Q2 were 0.624 and 0.487. Accuracy scores are 0.590, 0.574 and 0.688 for models based on men, women and couples data, respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Supervised Orthogonal partial least squares discriminant (OPLS-DA) model with 13 variables selected from the 24 variables model with variable importance for projections (VIP) > 1: reductionist model. (A) Score plot generated from fertile (labeled as green triangles) and infertile couples (labeled as red dots). R2 and Q2 were 0.467 and 0.410, respectively. Accuracy (internal validation) = 0.838 and calculated on the test set = 0.705. (B) VIP (Variable Importance for the Projection) the plot summarized the influence of the 13 variables on the model. (C) Score plot reductionist model from the merged development and test sets (61 couples) (black stars). (D) Score plot reductionist model from the combined development and test sets. Scores are labeled according to their fertility status (green or red).

References

    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil. Steril. 2009;92:1520–1524. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009.
    1. Datta J, et al. Prevalence of infertility and help seeking among 15 000 women and men. Hum. Reprod. 2016;31:2108–2118. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew123.
    1. Ray A, Shah A, Gudi A, Homburg R. Unexplained infertility: An update and review of practice. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2012;24:591–602. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.021.
    1. Smith S, Pfeifer SM, Collins JA. Diagnosis and management of female infertility. JAMA. 2003;290:1767–1770. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.13.1767.
    1. Piché ML, Babineau V, Robitaille J, Lachance É, Ruchat SM. Lifestyle-related factors associated with reproductive health in couples seeking fertility treatments: Results of a pilot study. Int. J. Fertil. Steril. 2018;12:19–26.
    1. Broughton DE, Moley KH. Obesity and female infertility: Potential mediators of obesity’s impact. Fertil. Steril. 2017;107:840–847. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.017.
    1. Michalakis K, Mintziori G, Kaprara A, Tarlatzis BC, Goulis DG. The complex interaction between obesity, metabolic syndrome and reproductive axis: A narrative review. Metabolism. 2013;62:457–478. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2012.08.012.
    1. Mushtaq R, et al. Effect of male body mass index on assisted reproduction treatment outcome: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2018;36:459–471. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.002.
    1. Campbell JM, Lane M, Owens JA, Bakos HW. Paternal obesity negatively affects male fertility and assisted reproduction outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2015;31:593–604. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.07.012.
    1. Rittenberg V, et al. Effect of body mass index on IVF treatment outcome: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2011;23:421–439. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.018.
    1. Rich-Edwards JW, et al. Physical activity, body mass index, and ovulatory disorder infertility. Epidemiology. 2002;13:184–190. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200203000-00013.
    1. Ramlau-Hansen CH, et al. Subfecundity in overweight and obese couples. Hum. Reprod. 2007;22:1634–1637. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem035.
    1. Sermondade N, et al. Obesity and increased risk for oligozoospermia and azoospermia. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012;172:440–442. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1382.
    1. Dupont C, et al. Obesity leads to higher risk of sperm DNA damage in infertile patients. Asian J. Androl. 2013;15:622–625. doi: 10.1038/aja.2013.65.
    1. Dupont C, et al. Metabolic syndrome and smoking are independent risk factors of male idiopathic infertility. Basic Clin. Androl. 2019;29:9. doi: 10.1186/s12610-019-0090-x.
    1. Faure C, et al. In subfertile couple, abdominal fat loss in men is associated with improvement of sperm quality and pregnancy: A case-series. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e86300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086300.
    1. Faure C, et al. Are superoxide dismutase 2 and nitric oxide synthase polymorphisms associated with idiopathic infertility? Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2014;21:565–569. doi: 10.1089/ars.2014.5831.
    1. Foucaut AM, et al. Sedentary behavior, physical inactivity and body composition in relation to idiopathic infertility among men and women. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0210770. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210770.
    1. Peterson ED. Machine learning, predictive analytics, and clinical practice: Can the past inform the present? JAMA. 2019;322:2283–2284. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17831.
    1. Shah NH, Milstein A, Bagley P. Making machine learning models clinically useful. JAMA. 2019;322:1351–1352. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10306.
    1. Deveci SE, Deveci F, Açik Y, Ozan AT. The measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy smokers and non-smokers. Respir. Med. 2004;98:551–556. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2003.11.018.
    1. Fiet J, et al. A liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectometry profile of 16 serum steroids, including 21-deoxycortisol and 21-deoxycorticosterone, for management of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. J. Endocr. Soc. 2017;1:186–201.
    1. Czernichow S, et al. Effects of long-term antioxidant supplementation and association of serum antioxidant concentrations with risk of metabolic syndrome in adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009;90:329–335. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27635.
    1. Akbaraly NT, Faure H, Gourlet V, Favier A, Berr C. Plasma carotenoid levels and cognitive performance in an elderly population: Results of the EVA Study. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2007;62:308–316. doi: 10.1093/gerona/62.3.308.
    1. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples) Biometrika. 1965;52:591–611. doi: 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591.
    1. Mann HB, Whitney DR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 1947;18:50–60. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177730491.
    1. Garali I, et al. A strategy for multimodal data integration: Application to biomarkers identification in spinocerebellar ataxia. Brief Bioinform. 2018;19:1356–1369. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx060.
    1. Pérez-Enciso M, Tenenhaus M. Prediction of clinical outcome with microarray data: A partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) approach. Hum. Genet. 2003;112:581–592.
    1. Tenenhaus ML. régression PLS: théorie et pratique. Editions Technip; 1998.
    1. Skorupa A, et al. Grading of endometrial cancer using 1H HR-MAS NMR-based metabolomics. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:18160. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-97505-y.
    1. Thévenot EA, Roux A, Xu Y, Ezan E, Junot C. Analysis of the human adult urinary metabolome variations with age, body mass index, and gender by implementing a comprehensive workflow for univariate and OPLS statistical analyses. J. Proteome Res. 2015;14:3322–3335. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00354.
    1. Eriksson L, Trygg J, Wold S. CV-ANOVA for significance testing of PLS and OPLS® models. J. Chemom. 2008;22:594–600. doi: 10.1002/cem.1187.
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Folic acid for the prevention of neural tube defects. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009;150:626–631. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00009.
    1. Sharpe RM, Irvine DS. How strong is the evidence of a link between environmental chemicals and adverse effects on human reproductive health? BMJ. 2004;328:447–451. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7437.447.
    1. Mínguez-Alarcón L, Chavarro JE, Gaskins AJ. Caffeine, alcohol, smoking, and reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatments. Fertil. Steril. 2018;110:587–592. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.026.
    1. Salas-Huetos A, Bulló M, Salas-Salvadó J. Dietary patterns, foods and nutrients in male fertility parameters and fecundability: A systematic review of observational studies. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2017;23:371–389. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmx006.
    1. Chiu Y-H, Chavarro JE, Souter I. Diet and female fertility: Doctor, what should I eat? Fertil. Steril. 2018;110:560–569. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.027.
    1. Hassan MA, Killick SR. Negative lifestyle is associated with a significant reduction in fecundity. Fertil. Steril. 2004;81:384–392. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.06.027.
    1. Dupont C, et al. Effectiveness of a therapeutic multiple-lifestyle intervention taking into account the periconceptional environment in the management of infertile couples: Study design of a randomized controlled trial—the PEPCI study. BMC Preg. Childbirth. 2020;20:322. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2855-9.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다