ArticleDisease markers2022
Analytical Comparison of Risk Prediction Models for the Onset of Macrosomia Based on Three Statistical Methods.
Article in Disease markers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association between sleep during pregnancy and birth outcomes: a prospective cohort study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Method: A retrospective selection of 93 women who were hospitalized in our hospital from March 2019 to May 2022 with a singleton pregnancy and delivered at term with macrosomia were the study group. And 356 women who delivered a normal size baby during the same period were the control group. The variables that were associated with the onset of macrosomia were screened from maternal medical records. Logistic regression models, random forest, and CART decision tree models were developed using the screened variables as input variables and whether they were macrosomia as outcome variables, respectively. The performance of the three models was evaluated by accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Result: The risk prediction models for the onset of macrosomia, logistic regression model, random forest model, and decision tree, were successfully developed, with accuracies of 0.904, 1.000, and 0.901 in the training set and 0.926, 0.582, and 0.852 in the validation set, respectively. The AUC in the training set were 0.898, 1.000, and 0.789, and in the validation set were 0.906, 0.913, and 0.731, respectively. In general, the logistic regression model has the highest diagnostic efficiency, followed by the random forest model. Conclusion: Logistic regression models have high application value in the assessment of predicting the risk of macrosomia, and it is suggested that the advantages of logistic regression models and random forest models should be combined in future studies and applications to make them work better in the prediction of the risk of macrosomia.
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.