ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2024
Machine learning-enabled maternal risk assessment for women with pre-eclampsia (the PIERS-ML model): a modelling study.
Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- PRERISK Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating a sFlt-1/PlGF-Based Calculator for Preeclampsia Hospitalization.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2025Trial
- Validation of the fullPIERS model for predicting severe maternal outcomes in preeclampsia in five Brazilian centers.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based First-Trimester Antenatal Risk Prediction for Adverse Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes: Multicenter Model Development Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Incidence and risk factors for stillbirth in Kenya, Mozambique and the Gambia: the PRECISE cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Africa · 2026Article
- Digital and AI-assisted approaches across the preeclampsia care pathway: a scoping review.AJOG global reports · 2026Article
- Performance of the Pre-Eclampsia Integrated Estimate of Risk-Machine Learning (PIERS-ML) model in a Kenyan cohort of women with pre-eclampsia- a retrospective test derivation validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Machine learning for risk stratification of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: Enhancing clinical efficiency in low-resource antenatal care in Tanzania.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Racial Disparities and the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Maternal Mortality: A Literature Review.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence and predictive analytics in obstetric anesthesia: early warning for maternal complications.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
- Expanding mountain-type zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis in China: a multi-source data-driven investigation.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- Validation of a machine-learning-based algorithm to predict preeclampsia-related adverse outcomes on a real-world dataset.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Development and internal validation of the LATE-PE model for predicting time-to-delivery in early-onset preeclampsia: a multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- AI-driven high-risk pregnancy prediction: balancing early detection, anxiety, and discrimination in digital public health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Transforming perinatal health with AI-predictive models in precision and digital innovations for maternal and fetal well-being: a systematic review.Oxford open digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence and the future of maternal and newborn health in low-income countries: advancing equity, early detection, and health system resilience.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for predicting and preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes addressing bias and clinical translation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Dietary Supplements in Pregnancy and Postpartum: Evidence, Safety Challenges and a Precision Nutrition Framework (GAPSS).Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Epigenetic Regulation of Imprinted Genes in the Neurodevelopment of Offspring Born to Women with Preeclampsia: A Review.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes associated with preeclampsia in twin pregnancies.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
15 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAffecting 2-4% of pregnancies, pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal death and morbidity worldwide. Using routinely available data, we aimed to develop and validate a novel machine learning-based and clinical setting-responsive time-of-disease model to rule out and rule in adverse maternal outcomes in women presenting with pre-eclampsia.
methodsWe used health system, demographic, and clinical data from the day of first assessment with pre-eclampsia to predict a Delphi-derived composite outcome of maternal mortality or severe morbidity within 2 days. Machine learning methods, multiple imputation, and ten-fold cross-validation were used to fit models on a development dataset (75% of combined published data of 8843 patients from 11 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries). Validation was undertaken on the unseen 25%, and an additional external validation was performed in 2901 inpatient women admitted with pre-eclampsia to two hospitals in south-east England. Predictive risk accuracy was determined by area-under-the-receiver-operator characteristic (AUROC), and risk categories were data-driven and defined by negative (-LR) and positive (+LR) likelihood ratios.
findingsOf 8843 participants, 590 (6·7%) developed the composite adverse maternal outcome within 2 days, 813 (9·2%) within 7 days, and 1083 (12·2%) at any time. An 18-variable random forest-based prediction model, PIERS-ML, was accurate (AUROC 0·80 [95% CI 0·76-0·84] vs the currently used logistic regression model, fullPIERS: AUROC 0·68 [0·63-0·74]) and categorised women into very low risk (-LR <0·1; eight [0·7%] of 1103 women), low risk (-LR 0·1 to 0·2; 321 [29·1%] women), moderate risk (-LR >0·2 and +LR <5·0; 676 [61·3%] women), high risk (+LR 5·0 to 10·0, 87 [7·9%] women), and very high risk (+LR >10·0; 11 [1·0%] women). Adverse maternal event rates were 0% for very low risk, 2% for low risk, 5% for moderate risk, 26% for high risk, and 91% for very high risk within 48 h. The 2901 women in the external validation dataset were accurately classified as being at very low risk (0% with outcomes), low risk (1%), moderate risk (4%), high risk (33%), or very high risk (67%).
interpretationThe PIERS-ML model improves identification of women with pre-eclampsia who are at lowest and greatest risk of severe adverse maternal outcomes within 2 days of assessment, and can support provision of accurate guidance to women, their families, and their maternity care providers.
fundingUniversity of Strathclyde Diversity in Data Linkage Centre for Doctoral Training, the Fetal Medicine Foundation, The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
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.