Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36312231›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Comparison of machine learning and logistic regression as predictive models for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes of preeclampsia: A retrospective study.

Dongying Zheng, Xinyu Hao, Muhanmmad Khan, Lixia Wang, Fan Li, Ning Xiang, Fuli Kang, Timo Hamalainen, Fengyu Cong, Kedong Song and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Presenting a prediction model for HELLP syndrome through data mining.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Dongying ZhengState Key Laboratory of Fine Chemicals, Dalian R&D Center for Stem Cell and Tissue Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.
Xinyu HaoFaculty of Information Technology, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Muhanmmad KhanInstitute of Zoology, University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
Lixia WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Fan LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Ning XiangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jingzhou Hospital Affiliated to Yangtze University, Jingzhou, China.
Fuli KangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Timo HamalainenFaculty of Information Technology, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Fengyu CongFaculty of Information Technology, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Kedong SongState Key Laboratory of Fine Chemicals, Dalian R&D Center for Stem Cell and Tissue Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.
Chong QiaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Preeclampsia, one of the leading causes of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, demands accurate predictive models for the lack of effective treatment. Predictive models based on machine learning algorithms demonstrate promising potential, while there is a controversial discussion about whether machine learning methods should be recommended preferably, compared to traditional statistical models. Methods: We employed both logistic regression and six machine learning methods as binary predictive models for a dataset containing 733 women diagnosed with preeclampsia. Participants were grouped by four different pregnancy outcomes. After the imputation of missing values, statistical description and comparison were conducted preliminarily to explore the characteristics of documented 73 variables. Sequentially, correlation analysis and feature selection were performed as preprocessing steps to filter contributing variables for developing models. The models were evaluated by multiple criteria. Results: We first figured out that the influential variables screened by preprocessing steps did not overlap with those determined by statistical differences. Secondly, the most accurate imputation method is K-Nearest Neighbor, and the imputation process did not affect the performance of the developed models much. Finally, the performance of models was investigated. The random forest classifier, multi-layer perceptron, and support vector machine demonstrated better discriminative power for prediction evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, while the decision tree classifier, random forest, and logistic regression yielded better calibration ability verified, as by the calibration curve. Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms can accomplish prediction modeling and demonstrate superior discrimination, while Logistic Regression can be calibrated well. Statistical analysis and machine learning are two scientific domains sharing similar themes. The predictive abilities of such developed models vary according to the characteristics of datasets, which still need larger sample sizes and more influential predictors to accumulate evidence.

Indexed as

adverse outcomeslogistic regressionmachine learningmaternalneonatalpredictive modelspre-eclampsia (PE)retrospective study

Identifiers

PMID36312231
PMCPMC9596815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.