ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
An evaluation of cervical maturity for Chinese women with labor induction by machine learning and ultrasound images.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of cervical balloon fluid volume on maternal labor process, maternal and infant outcomes, and pregnancy-related anxiety.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Exploratory Non-invasive Estimation of Cervical Dilation from Electrohysterography and Maternal Data: A Machine-Learning Proof-of-Concept Study.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Multivariate analysis of determinants and development of a predictive algorithm for successful labor induction in nulliparous women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the improvement of evaluation accuracy of cervical maturity for Chinese women with labor induction by adding objective ultrasound data and machine learning models to the existing traditional Bishop method.
methodsThe machine learning model was trained and tested using 101 sets of data from pregnant women who were examined and had their delivery in Peking University Third Hospital in between December 2019 and January 2021. The inputs of the model included cervical length, Bishop score, angle, age, induced labor time, measurement time (MT), measurement time to induced labor time (MTILT), method of induced labor, and primiparity/multiparity. The output of the model is the predicted time from induced labor to labor. Our experiments analyzed the effectiveness of three machine learning models: XGBoost, CatBoost and RF(Random forest). we consider the root-mean-squared error (RMSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE) as the criterion to evaluate the accuracy of the model. Difference was compared using t-test on RMSE between the machine learning model and the traditional Bishop score.
resultsThe mean absolute error of the prediction result of Bishop scoring method was 19.45 h, and the RMSE was 24.56 h. The prediction error of machine learning model was lower than the Bishop score method. Among the three machine learning models, the MAE of the model with the best prediction effect was 13.49 h and the RMSE was 16.98 h. After selection of feature the prediction accuracy of the XGBoost and RF was slightly improved. After feature selection and artificially removing the Bishop score, the prediction accuracy of the three models decreased slightly. The best model was XGBoost (p = 0.0017). The p-value of the other two models was < 0.01.
conclusionIn the evaluation of cervical maturity, the results of machine learning method are more objective and significantly accurate compared with the traditional Bishop scoring method. The machine learning method is a better predictor of cervical maturity than the traditional Bishop method.
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.