Improving IVF Utilization with Patient-Centric Artificial Intelligence-Machine Learning (AI/ML): A Retrospective Multicenter Experience

Objectives: In vitro fertilization (IVF) has the potential to give babies to millions more people globally, yet it continues to be underutilized. We established a globally applicable and locally adaptable IVF prognostics report and framework to support patient–provider counseling and enable validated, data-driven treatment decisions. This study investigates the IVF utilization rates associated with the usage of machine learning, center-specific (MLCS) prognostic reports (the Univfy® report) in provider-patient pre-treatment and IVF counseling. Methods: We used a retrospective cohort comprising 24,238 patients with new patient visits (NPV) from 2016 to 2022 across seven fertility centers in 17 locations in seven US states and Ontario, Canada. We tested the association of Univfy report usage and first intra-uterine insemination (IUI) and/or first IVF usage (a.k.a. conversion) within 180 days, 360 days, and “Ever” of NPV as primary outcomes. Results: Univfy report usage was associated with higher direct IVF conversion (without prior IUI), with odds ratios (OR) 3.13 (95% CI 2.83, 3.46), 2.89 (95% CI 2.63, 3.17), and 2.04 (95% CI 1.90, 2.20) and total IVF conversion (with or without prior IUI), OR 3.41 (95% CI 3.09, 3.75), 3.81 (95% CI 3.49, 4.16), and 2.78 (95% CI 2.59, 2.98) in 180-day, 360-day, and Ever analyses, respectively; p < 0.05. Among patients with Univfy report usage, after accounting for center as a factor, older age was a small yet independent predictor of IVF conversion. Conclusions: Usage of a patient-centric, MLCS-based prognostics report was associated with increased IVF conversion among new fertility patients. Further research to study factors influencing treatment decision making and real-world optimization of patient-centric workflows utilizing the MLCS reports is warranted.


Introduction
Safe and efficacious, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has the potential to enable millions more people globally to have a family, yet it continues to be underutilized [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].For patients contemplating the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with their own eggs, IVF with donor eggs, intra-uterine insemination (IUI), or a wait-and-see approach, CONSORT-AI, and SPIRIT-AI) address the scientific aspects of prediction modeling or clinical trials unaffected by customized, multisite implementation variations [37][38][39][40][41]. Also, the DECIDE-AI guidelines can apply to diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic AI tools and do not impose a particular study design [36].

Current Research Objectives
The overarching goal of this study was to share real-world, early-stage clinical usage of a patient counseling report conveying personalized IVF LBP validated by ML-trained prediction models for each participating center (i.e., the Univfy ® PreIVF Report, a.k.a.Univfy report).Specifically, we aimed to report the relationship between Univfy report usage and first IVF and/or IUI usage (a.k.a.IVF or IUI conversion) at three different time intervals after the new patient visit and assess the relationship between Univfy report usage and IVF and/or IUI conversion.Using the DECIDE-AI guidelines, we conducted this retrospective cohort study with seven unrelated North American fertility centers operating in 17 locations across seven US states and Ontario, Canada.In aggregate, these centers performed ~3500 IVF cycles (excluding embryo transfers) and evaluated ~12,000 new fertility patients annually during the study period spanning 2016-2022.We also describe a stand-alone method for quantifying treatment conversion rate that can be applied to any center to facilitate reporting and comparisons.

De-Identified Data and Data Sources
De-identified data (including clinical service utilization, treatment, and outcomes data) previously linked and processed as part of Univfy client services were entered into the Univfy research database as per the research protocol, which has an exempt status determined by Institutional Review Board (IRB).The overall time period covered by this study is 2016-2022, within which each center had 4-5 years of post-launch usage.
The original data sources provided by each center included any combination of electronic medical record (EMR) systems, appointment data, other third-party software, the Univfy report database, and SART CORS, the US national registry database managed by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) [42].Figure 1 summarizes the sources of raw data, data processing steps, and the processed and merged data for analysis in addition to additional details.Of the seven centers, one was a Canadian center, and six were American centers that reported to SART.

Univfy Report and MLCS Model Life Cycle
The Univfy report and MLCS model life cycle, including methods used for model training and validation, were reported elsewhere [19][20][21][22][23].Each center s own historical outcomes data were initially subjected to model training and validation, as part of HIPAAcompliant, paid services performed independent of and prior to the current research

Univfy Report and MLCS Model Life Cycle
The Univfy report and MLCS model life cycle, including methods used for model training and validation, were reported elsewhere [19][20][21][22][23].Each center's own historical outcomes data were initially subjected to model training and validation, as part of HIPAAcompliant, paid services performed independent of and prior to the current research study.
IVF Outcomes Data, used for the development and validation of the prediction model (Figure 1), typically contains age, BMI, at least one ovarian reserve test (e.g., Day 3 FSH, serum anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels, antral follicle count (AFC)), clinical diagnoses, male partner history and/or any male factor diagnosis, reproductive history, prior IVF-ET outcomes, and any additional available variables that providers wish to test as model predictors.Of note, AFC was not routinely used or available at the time of IVF pretreatment patient counseling.Other than the patient's age, no other variables were strictly required for model building, as each center typically has recorded sufficient data for an adequate set of variables to support MLCS model development and validation from consecutive years of data.Subsets of these clinical variables showed relative importance as model predictors, though the predictor subsets and their relative weighting vary slightly across centers [20,23].Specifically, the important role of AMH and AFC was reported by Nelson et al., 2015 [23].
Related but separate from IVF Outcomes Data requirements is the mandatory versus optional data entry for generating a Univfy report for a patient.Whether a variable is required or optional or not even requested depends on its relative importance in the model and clinical workflow (e.g., whether that clinical variable would realistically be available at the time of patient counseling).For example, prior to 2022, each center was using its own first version of the Univfy report (launched at various times in 2016-2019).Some of those first-version Univfy reports used Day 3 FSH as the only ovarian reserve test or used one or both of Day 3 FSH and AMH.That design reflected (i) IVF Outcomes Data not having sufficient AMH availability from the years prior to the Univfy report launch (i.e., a predictor cannot be used if that predictor was not adequately used in the historical datasets); (ii) AMH not being routinely covered by health insurance plans.Currently, fertility centers are using second-version Univfy reports that all require AMH to be entered, which reflects the adequate AMH usage in the IVF Outcomes Data used to build and validate current models and the current, routine usage of AMH in clinical practice.
The Univfy report provided the personalized probability of having a baby from one, two, or up to three IVF cycles.In addition, the fertility center can elect to also provide the probability of having a baby from an IUI cycle or from one, two, or up to three IUI cycles.The IUI success rates may be cited from a reference article typically used by the providers in that context, or they can be generated from the center's own IUI data, if available.The Univfy report did not recommend a decision between IUI and IVF.Instead, the report gave prognostic information about both treatment options (if the patient was clinically eligible) to support counseling by the provider and decision making by the patient.Additionally, the Univfy report showed patients how their age, BMI, and ovarian reserve compared with other IVF patients at the same center.Finally, the Univfy report also showed the IVF fees (customized for each center) and, if applicable, showed a cost comparison between pursuing "shared risk" (also called the IVF refund program) and paying fee-for-service.

Defining Event History, Time Interval, and IUI or IVF Treatment Utilization
Using the Event History Data Set, which comprised merged data from Patient Visit Data (including office visits, IUI and IVF treatment dates), Univfy Report Data (including Univfy report usage and associated clinical data), and IVF Outcomes Data (see Figure 1), a chronological Event History was created for each de-identified patient ("patient" hereafter) that had a new patient visit (NPV) during the time period analyzed.The Event History was mapped for 3 timed intervals for analysis: 180 days post-NPV (180D), 360 days post-NPV (360D), and "Ever".Here, we defined the IVF cycle as having started ovarian stimulation with the intention to perform oocyte retrieval, IVF, or ICSI and subsequent fresh and/or frozen embryo transfer(s)."Conversion" was used to signify the first usage of IUI or IVF following NPV at each center.
IVF conversion included IVF cycles using one's own or one's partner's or third party's eggs or uterus, egg freezing, and freeze-all and IVF cycles in which oocyte retrieval and/or embryo transfer was cancelled for any reason, outside of illness and other non-fertility related reasons.IUI treatment was taken as-is from the appointment data and included IUI cycles using a partner's or donor sperm, natural cycle, ovulation induction, ovarian stimulation, ovulation trigger, and/or luteal phase support.Patient Groups: The Univfy Group comprised patients who received a Univfy report prior to the first IUI or first IVF usage or had no IUI or IVF subsequent to receiving the Univfy report, within the analysis period (Figure 3A,B).The No Univfy Group comprised patients who did not receive a Univfy report prior to their first IUI or IVF, or at any time during that same analysis period.

Univfy Report Usage Indications and Contraindications
All 7 centers chose to provide the Univfy report to their patients at no additional cost.Univfy recommended using the Univfy report if the following 2 indications were met and there were no contraindications: (1) the patient must be 18-45 years of age; (2) patient was determined by her provider to be clinically eligible to receive IVF treatment and was interested in being counseled on the benefits and limitations of IVF using their own eggs.Contraindications of the Univfy report implemented during this study period were as fol-

Univfy Report Usage Indications and Contraindications
All 7 centers chose to provide the Univfy report to their patients at no additional cost.Univfy recommended using the Univfy report if the following 2 indications were met and there were no contraindications: (1) the patient must be 18-45 years of age; (2) patient was determined by her provider to be clinically eligible to receive IVF treatment and was interested in being counseled on the benefits and limitations of IVF using their own eggs.Contraindications of the Univfy report implemented during this study period were as follows: (1) patient was in perimenopause or menopause, (2) Day 3 FSH > 15 mIU/mL, or (3) had a prior failed IVF cycle with no blastocysts or euploid blastocysts for transfer, and/or the oocyte or embryo quality was extremely poor.(Univfy offered a separate model addressing patients with past poor embryology outcomes, which is beyond the scope of this article.).
As part of the standard data processing and model development processes, we present the steps and results pertaining to the model and model performance, including indications and contraindications, to the clinical leadership at the center for discussion, any revisions, and final approval.These and any additionally necessary contraindications are then stated explicitly in the Instructions for Use (IFU) manual and then taught to center personnel at the time of training.

Providers' Autonomy of Univfy Report Usage and Real-World Limitations
Univfy did not impose any additional usage rules.Centers and providers had complete autonomy to choose the extent of Univfy report usage, including the prioritization of Univfy report usage to patients who, in the provider's clinical judgement, should consider IVF as a first-line treatment for a variety of clinical reasons.During the study period, automated EMR-Univfy data transmission and staffing by advanced practice providers (APP) were not in place at most centers.Therefore, Univfy report usage was limited by staffing and patients' completion of diagnostic tests.
It was not possible to compare the pre-treatment clinical data between all patients in the Univfy vs.No Univfy Groups.Specifically, baseline pre-treatment clinical data for certain patients would have required de novo EMR data extraction, an activity not permitted under the IRB-exempt study protocol.Patients affected by this data limitation were No Univfy Group patients that took the care navigation paths of IUI Only or "No IUI or IVF".

Statistical Analyses
Chi-square tests of independence were used to test actual versus expected proportions for Univfy vs.No Univfy report usage and the difference in IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF treatment conversions between Univfy and No Univfy Groups at each center.A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the mean difference in IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF treatment conversions across the 7 centers.NS indicated a non-significant p-value ≥ 0.05.
Two logistic regression analyses were performed.First, logistic regression was applied to data from all seven centers to test the effect of center and Univfy report usage on the likelihood of each of IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF usage.Separately, logistic regression was used to test the effect of center and patients' age on the likelihood of IVF usage among Univfy Group patients.Per research protocol requirements, the data available for this analysis were limited to Univfy Report Data available between 1 July 2019 and the end of the study period for 5 of 7 centers.We did not extend the regression analysis to test the effect of AMH on IVF conversion, because not all the centers' first version of the Univfy report (designed and launched at various times in 2016-2019) required AMH usage, as the Univfy report accommodated the use of Day 3 FSH and/or AMH at that time (see Section 2.2).
This study is reported according to the STROBE statement and DECIDE-AI guidelines [36,43].

Univfy Report Utilization
Univfy report utilization and treatment conversion analysis was performed for all seven centers.The total numbers of unique patients meeting criteria of the three timed analyses were 20,512 (180D), 17,124 (360D), and 24,238 (Ever) in aggregate across the seven centers.The mean Univfy report utilization rates across seven centers for the 180D, 360D, and Ever time periods were 17.4% (95% CI 12.4-22.4%),20.1% (95% CI 14.5-25.7%),and 24.3% (95% CI 18.3-30.3%),respectively.Since chi-square tests of independence showed that the Univfy report utilization rate was different across centers in each time period assessed (p < 0.001), subsequent results were reported for the aggregate data and were either on a per-center level or accounted for "center" as a proxy for center-specific attributes.

Comparison of IUI and IVF Conversion Rates between the Univfy and No Univfy Groups
We tested whether Univfy report usage was associated with differential conversion rates for the Event Groups IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF in each timed analysis.Compared to the No Univfy Group, Univfy report exposure increased the odds of IUI conversion by 195% (OR = 2.95, CI 2.63-3.31,p < 0.001), Direct IVF conversion by 213% (OR = 3.13, CI 2.83-3.46,p < 0.001), and Total IVF conversion by 241% (OR 3.41, CI 3.09-3.75,p < 0.001) at 180 days post-new patient visit.Similar findings were observed for the 360D and Ever time periods (Table 1).Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that across centers, the Univfy group showed higher conversion rates for IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF (Figure 4A).At the per-center level, Direct IVF and Total IVF conversion rates were significantly higher in the Univfy Group in each of the seven centers, and IUI conversion rate was significantly higher in the Univfy Group in five of seven centers (Figure 4B).Using regression models accounting for "center" as a proxy for center-specific attributes, we confirmed that Univfy report usage was a significant predictor for each of IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion in each of the time periods assessed (Table 1).
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that across centers, the Univfy group showed higher conversion rates for IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF (Figure 4A).At the per-center level, Direct IVF and Total IVF conversion rates were significantly higher in the Univfy Group in each of the seven centers, and IUI conversion rate was significantly higher in the Univfy Group in five of seven centers (Figure 4B).Using regression models accounting for "center" as a proxy for center-specific attributes, we confirmed that Univfy report usage was a significant predictor for each of IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion in each of the time periods assessed (Table 1).Table 1.Summary statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval (95% CI)) of the IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion rates across 7 centers for Univfy Group and No Univfy Group and the odds ratio of increased conversion in the Univfy Group compared to the No Univfy Group for each timed analysis.Χ 2 ORs and p-values are based on chi-square test of independence using the aggregate data from 7 centers.Regression OR of Univfy report and p-values are based on regression models analyzing the relationship between center and Univfy report exposure on IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversions.

Assessing the Influence of Age on Treatment Decisions within the Univfy Group
Although it was not possible to analyze both Univfy and No Univfy Groups in their entireties with respect to patients' clinical characteristics, we were able to test within the Univfy Group the potential influence of age on treatment decisions.Specifically, for the Univfy Group, we applied logistic regression to analyze the relationship between center and age on the probability of Direct IVF or Total IVF treatment conversion-using Patient Group and Event Group assignment in the Ever time period.Overall, 2468 patients from five centers in the Univfy Group had data available for this analysis (see restrictions explained in Section 2.7 and Figure 1, Sources of Raw Data for PreIVF Report Data).For context, the Direct IVF and Total IVF conversion rates for those 2468 patients were 31% and 45%, respectively.Using "center" to account for any center-specific attributes, age increased the odds of pursuing Direct IVF (OR = 1.05,CI 1.03-1.07,p < 0.001) and Total IVF conversion (OR = 1.03,CI 1.01-1.05,p < 0.001).For example, across centers, the average probability of Direct IVF conversion (without doing IUI first) was 30% at age 34 and 37% at age 40, whereas the average probability of Total IVF Conversion (regardless of IUI usage) was 45% at age 34 and 49% at age 40.

Discussion
Here, we discuss the unique contributions, limitations, and potential biases of this study in the context of addressing patients' decision support needs using IVF prognostics tools.In addition, we offer insights to improve IVF usage, including ways to evaluate complex care navigation using treatment utilization metrics.
First, we review the intended clinical usage and relevance.The Univfy report was intended to provide pre-treatment IVF success probabilities to support decision making by each patient/couple, with a focus on treatment success expectations.The Univfy report conveyed the personalized IVF success probability based on the IVF cycle start, accounting for cycles that were unsuccessful due to cancellation of egg retrieval, poor ovarian response to stimulation, no embryos to transfer, and pregnancy loss.Though national registries have provided a bird's eye view of IVF outcomes to inform policy and maternal and newborn safety guidelines, the Univfy report enables providers to communicate the IVF live birth probability based on each patient's own health data with a prediction model that has been validated for data from their specific fertility center.The practical clinical benefits of using the machine learning, center-specific approach specific to model performance are discussed in other reports and are beyond the scope of this article [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][29][30][31]33].
There were limitations to this study.This study's retrospective and non-randomized setting likely allowed for a mix of intended and unintended tendencies to use the Univfy report in patients who were more motivated in completing diagnostics and scheduling follow-up visits.Given the constraints of the exempt IRB protocol, it is beyond the scope of this current study to explore full EMR data exports to conduct the most appropriate comparison-Univfy vs.No Univfy Groups-to determine the differences in clinical characteristics of both groups, each in its entirety.Nevertheless, we surmised that even if the size of the "No IUI or IVF" Event Group within the No Univfy Group decreased by 20%, the Univfy Group would still show higher IVF conversion rates.There is also a small risk that not all Univfy reports that were generated were necessarily given to patients or used directly in patient counseling conversations, though providers' informally self-reported that this issue occurred infrequently.
Potential bias notwithstanding, we learned that of the 2468 patients exposed to the Univfy report prior to their first IUI or IVF (or no treatment), the magnitude of patient's age as a predictor for IVF conversion was limited after accounting for center as a proxy for all other center-specific attributes.In that regression analysis, we did not analyze AMH effect in addition to age and center effects, because clinical practice changed from using Day 3 FSH to AMH for ovarian reserve evaluation during that time (see AMH usage detailed in Section 2.2).We hypothesize that the use of a the MLCS-based counseling report increases IVF conversion rates by acknowledging personalization, center validation, and transparency in addition to its IVF prognostics delivery.Future studies should test additional factors such as IUI failure and IVF insurance coverage for any independent impact on the IVF cycle start decision.In addition, multicenter analyses and single-center analyses are both important in gaining insights that are generalizable to many centers and recognizing actionable items (a.k.a.low-hanging fruit) specific to each center.These examples highlight the need to shift from AI/ML model building to deployment including efficient and effective use of data to realize the potential of AI/ML to improve medicine and healthcare access and delivery [44].Whereas most therapeutics can be tested using a "purist" approach using standardized administration (e.g., oral, IV, injections, etc.), studying the clinical impact of AI/ML tools requires additional considerations in the early technology adoption phase.The Univfy report utilization rates showed patterns of cautious adoption of new technology, as typically seen in the broader healthcare field [45].
In hindsight, it may seem limiting to not have full EMR data exports to support the Univfy vs.No Univfy analysis.However, during the study period (2016-2022), this was intentional to focus on establishing model validity, implementation, provider trust, and provider-patient satisfaction.Activities that were not "mission critical" for the modelreport usage would have required yet more administrative burden from fertility centers and their clinical teams.The need to prioritize provider effort and overall costs is a necessary discipline in technology development and, in turn, keeps the cost of usage affordable, which directly relates back to making IVF more accessible.Further, there is ongoing adaptation to meet clinical needs.The historical and economic contexts related to AMH usage (Section 2.2) and its impact on model design illustrate the dynamic interactions between clinical practice patterns and AI/ML health technology evolution.The various constraints that we experienced turned out to be quite typical of early-stage studies of AI/ML-based tools implemented to support clinical care.In fact, the DECIDE-AI guidelines were established specifically to provide a framework for appropriate reporting under those constraints [36].Finally, it would not have been appropriate to initiate a prospective trial back in 2016-2020, before confirming real-world implementation and clinical usage.
At the time of writing, the AI/ML platform offers a white glove service that manages and generates Univfy reports for centers including EMR-integrated automation of MLCSbased prognostics report generation; more fertility centers are also using a wider range of providers, including advanced practice providers (APPs), to scale the accessibility of IVF [35,46].These types of support, which help to streamline provider team flow and improve patients' experience, were not in place during the study period.Those and many other support features have assisted providers in adopting routine usage of Univfy reports and are essential for successful technology adoption in the current environment where understaffing is the norm.
Although most fertility centers have internal reporting of IVF utilization rates, there have been no standardized metrics, making inter-center discussions void of "apples-toapples" relevance.By implementing benchmarks (e.g., Univfy report and conversion metrics such as 180D, 360D, and Ever), fertility centers with very different workflows and demographics could optimize patient-centric care navigation tailored to their teams' and patients' needs, while reporting metrics applicable across diverse locations.Also, the Univfy report and benchmark infrastructure further allow us to explore provider-patient shared decision-making in IVF and generate hypotheses for testing.There is an urgent need to understand patient decision making to realize the full potential of fertility care.

Conclusions
Altogether, this study's findings suggest that the use of an MLCS-based, IVF prognostics counseling report is associated with higher IVF conversion rates.Among patients having an MLCS-based counseling report, older age was a small yet independent predictor of IVF conversion after accounting for center as a predictor.The retrospective nature of the study did not allow us to test for possible biases that might have caused some patients to receive or not receive the Univfy report.This study's findings informed the design and implementation of a prospective trial to evaluate the impact of MLCS-based provider-patient counseling on IVF conversion.Further research to study factors influencing treatment decision making and real-world optimization of patient-centric workflows utilizing the MLCS reports is warranted.

Patents
Univfy Inc. owns or is the licensee of issued and pending patents related to the subject matter of this study, including Patent Number 9,458,495B2, foreign counterparts and patents issued.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Summary of raw data sources, data processing steps, and the resulting processed and merged data for analysis.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Summary of raw data sources, data processing steps, and the resulting processed and merged data for analysis.

2. 4 .
Defining Patient Groups, Univfy Report Usage, Event Groups, and Time Periods for Analyses Patients were retrospectively allocated to Patient Groups (Univfy Group vs.No Univfy Group) and Event Groups (IUI, Direct IVF, Total IVF, No IUI, or IVF).The Patient and Event Groups, contemporaneous to each center, and Univfy usage rates were mapped for each of three time intervals: 180D, 360D, and "Ever".IUI or IVF conversion analyses were performed for each of the three time periods (Figure2).

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Event History mapping for 3 timed analyses: (A) 180 days post-NPV (180D), 360 days post-NPV (360D), and "Ever".(B) Examples showing the mapping of Event History to Patient Groups and Event Groups as per Methods 2.4.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Event History mapping for 3 timed analyses: (A) 180 days post-NPV (180D), 360 days post-NPV (360D), and "Ever".(B) Examples showing the mapping of Event History to Patient Groups and Event Groups as per Methods 2.4.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Patient care navigation to treatment conversion by Patient Groups and Event Groups.(A) Retrospective patient cohort aggregated from 7 centers and their Event Groups (bolded) based on the Ever timed analysis: new patient visit (NPV)-IUI conversion (IUI Group), NPV-IVF conversion (Direct IVF Group), usage of 1st IVF cycle with or without one or more preceding IUIs (Total IVF Group), and "No IUI or IVF" Group.(B) The patient cohort from (A) separated into 2 Patient Groups-the Univfy Group (green) and the No Univfy Group (gray).

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Patient care navigation to treatment conversion by Patient Groups and Event Groups.(A) Retrospective patient cohort aggregated from 7 centers and their Event Groups (bolded) based on the Ever timed analysis: new patient visit (NPV)-IUI conversion (IUI Group), NPV-IVF conversion (Direct IVF Group), usage of 1st IVF cycle with or without one or more preceding IUIs (Total IVF Group), and "No IUI or IVF" Group.(B) The patient cohort from (A) separated into 2 Patient Groups-the Univfy Group (green) and the No Univfy Group (gray).

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Comparison of IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion rates between Univfy Group and No Univfy Group in 3 timed analyses.(A) The conversion rates across 7 centers were compared between Univfy Group and No Univfy Group for IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversions in each timed analyses, 180D, 360D, and Ever, using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.* p < 0.05.(B) The per-center IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion rates are compared using chi-square tests * p < 0.001, NS not significant.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Comparison of IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion rates between Univfy Group and No Univfy Group in 3 timed analyses.(A) The conversion rates across 7 centers were compared between Univfy Group and No Univfy Group for IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversions in each timed analyses, 180D, 360D, and Ever, using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.* p < 0.05.(B) The percenter IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion rates are compared using chi-square tests * p < 0.001, NS not significant.

Table 1 .
Summary statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval (95% CI)) of the IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversion rates across 7 centers for Univfy Group and No Univfy Group and the odds ratio of increased conversion in the Univfy Group compared to the No Univfy Group for each timed analysis.X 2 ORs and p-values are based on chi-square test of independence using the aggregate data from 7 centers.Regression OR of Univfy report and p-values are based on regression models analyzing the relationship between center and Univfy report exposure on IUI, Direct IVF, and Total IVF conversions.