ArticlePloS one2017
Predicting congenital heart defects: A comparison of three data mining methods.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of machine learning for diagnosis and prognostic prediction of congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Congenital heart disease diagnosis using machine learning: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Towards deep phenotyping pregnancy: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and machine learning methods to improve pregnancy outcomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Pooled it
- Genetic Susceptibility to Drug Teratogenicity: A Systematic Literature Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Hybrid vision transformer framework for congenital heart disease diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning model for identifying key risk factors in congenital heart disease prediction using questionnaire data: a retrospective case-control study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A Generalized Machine Learning Model for Identifying Congenital Heart Defects (CHDs) Using ICD Codes.Birth defects research · 2025Article
- Article
- Classification of Fetal Congenital Heart Disease by Prenatal Ultrasound and Its Diagnostic Value.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Prediction of poststroke independent walking using machine learning: a retrospective study.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- Effects of Sociodemographic Factors on Access to and Outcomes in Congenital Heart Disease in the United States.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Accurately assessing congenital heart disease using artificial intelligence.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- A machine learning model for predicting congenital heart defects from administrative data.Birth defects research · 2023Article
- Identifying the Factors Affecting the Incidence of Congenital Heart Disease Using Support Vector Machine and Particle Swarm Optimization.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Pregnant women's knowledge of birth defects and their associated factors among antenatal care attendees in referral hospitals of Amhara regional state, Ethiopia, in 2019.Frontiers in global women's health · 2023Article
- Dietary Quality during Pregnancy and Congenital Heart Defects.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Novel Insights on Establishing Machine Learning-Based Stroke Prediction Models Among Hypertensive Adults.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Analytical Comparison of Risk Prediction Models for the Onset of Macrosomia Based on Three Statistical Methods.Disease markers · 2022Article
- Enhanced prediction of atrial fibrillation and mortality among patients with congenital heart disease using nationwide register-based medical hospital data and neural networks.European heart journal. Digital health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital heart defects (CHD) is one of the most common birth defects in China. Many studies have examined risk factors for CHD, but their predictive abilities have not been evaluated. In particular, few studies have attempted to predict risks of CHD from, necessarily unbalanced, population-based cross-sectional data. Therefore, we developed and validated machine learning models for predicting, before and during pregnancy, women's risks of bearing children with CHD. We compared the results of these models in a large-scale, comprehensive population-based retrospective cross-sectional epidemiological survey of birth defects in six counties in Shanxi Province, China, covering 2006 to 2008. This contained 78 cases of CHD among 33831 live births. We constructed nine synthetic variables to use in the models: maternal age, annual per capita income, family history, maternal history of illness, nutrition and folic acid deficiency, maternal illness in pregnancy, medication use in pregnancy, environmental risk factors in pregnancy, and unhealthy maternal lifestyle in pregnancy. The machine learning algorithms Weighted Support Vector Machine (WSVM) and Weighted Random Forest (WRF) were trained on, and a logistic regression (Logit) was fitted to, two-thirds of the data. Their predictive abilities were then tested in the remaining data. True positive rate (TPR), true negative rate (TNR), accuracy (ACC), area under the curves (AUC), G-means, and Weighted accuracy (WTacc) were used to compare the classification performance of the models. Median values, from repeating the data partitioning 1000 times, were used in all comparisons. The TPR and TNR of the three classifiers were above 0.65 and 0.93, respectively, better than any reported in the literature. TPR, wtACC, AUC and G were highest for WSVM, showing that it performed best. All three models are precise enough to identify groups at high risk of CHD. They should all be considered for future investigations of other birth defects and diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.