ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation in the active phase of labour (CONDISOX): individual management based on artificial intelligence - a secondary analysis.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretable machine learning model for predicting low birth weight in singleton pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines regarding oxytocin stimulation are not tailored to individuals as they are based on randomised controlled trials. The objective of the study was to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model for individual prediction of the risk of caesarean delivery (CD) in women with a cervical dilatation of 6 cm after oxytocin stimulation for induced labour. The model included not only variables known when labour induction was initiated but also variables describing the course of the labour induction.
methodsSecondary analysis of data from the CONDISOX randomised controlled trial of discontinued vs. continued oxytocin infusion in the active phase of induced labour. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) software was used to build the prediction model. To explain the impact of the predictors, we calculated Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values and present a summary SHAP plot. A force plot was used to explain specifics about an individual's predictors that result in a change of the individual's risk output value from the population-based risk.
resultsAmong 1060 included women, 160 (15.1%) were delivered by CD. The XGBoost model found women who delivered vaginally were more likely to be parous, taller, to have a lower estimated birth weight, and to be stimulated with a lower amount of oxytocin. In 108 women (10% of 1060) the model favoured either continuation or discontinuation of oxytocin. For the remaining 90% of the women, the model found that continuation or discontinuation of oxytocin stimulation affected the risk difference of CD by less than 5% points.
conclusionIn women undergoing labour induction, this AI model based on a secondary analysis of data from the CONDISOX trial may help predict the risk of CD and assist the mother and clinician in individual tailored management of oxytocin stimulation after reaching 6 cm of cervical dilation.
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.