ArticleFertility and sterility2024
Predictive models of miscarriage on the basis of data from a preconception cohort study.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discrimination and risk of spontaneous abortion in a preconception cohort study.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2026Article
- Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, perceived stress, and miscarriage risk in a cohort of US Black women.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Predicting of early miscarriage based on machine learning: a retrospective cohort study in China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Contribution of Consumer Products to Emerging Chemical Exposures in a Preconception Cohort Study.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors associated with prior pregnancy loss among multigravid women: a retrospective machine learning analysis from an African population cohort.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Effects of sleep quality, anxiety, and depression on miscarriage among pregnant women: a multi-center prospective observational study.Translational psychiatry · 2025Observational
- A Genetic Risk Score for Recurrent Miscarriages Based on Polymorphisms in Platelet Glycoproteins and Adhesion Molecules Genes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Risk prediction for recurrent pregnancy loss based on routine inspections in the first trimester of pregnancy, a retrospective study in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Understanding the impact of the vaginal microbiota on miscarriage: Are we there yet?Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo use self-reported preconception data to derive models that predict the risk of miscarriage.
designProspective preconception cohort study.
settingNot applicable. PATIENTS: Study participants were female, aged 21-45 years, residents of the United States or Canada, and attempting spontaneous pregnancy at enrollment during 2013-2022. Participants were followed for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts; those who conceived were followed through pregnancy and postpartum. We restricted analyses to participants who conceived during the study period. EXPOSURE: On baseline and follow-up questionnaires completed every 8 weeks until pregnancy, we collected self-reported data on sociodemographic factors, reproductive history, lifestyle, anthropometrics, diet, medical history, and male partner characteristics. We included 160 potential predictor variables in our models.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a miscarriage, defined as pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation. We followed participants from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss of follow-up, or 20 weeks of gestation), whichever occurred first. We fit both survival and static models using Cox proportional hazards models, logistic regression, support vector machines, gradient-boosted trees, and random forest algorithms. We evaluated model performance using the concordance index (survival models) and the weighted F1 score (static models).
resultsAmong the 8,720 participants who conceived, 20.4% reported miscarriage. In multivariable models, the strongest predictors of miscarriage were female age, history of miscarriage, and male partner age. The weighted F1 score ranged from 73%-89% for static models and the concordance index ranged from 53%-56% for survival models, indicating better discrimination for the static models compared with the survival models (i.e., the ability of the model to discriminate between individuals with and without miscarriage). No appreciable differences were observed across strata of miscarriage history or among models restricted to ≥8 weeks of gestation.
conclusionOur findings suggest that miscarriage is not easily predicted on the basis of preconception lifestyle characteristics and that advancing age and a history of miscarriage are the most important predictors of incident miscarriage.
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.