ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Predicting intraoperative blood loss during cesarean sections based on multi-modal information: a two-center study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning for Intraoperative Bleeding Prediction in Patients Undergoing Surgery: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Ultrasound texture-based radiomics of placental and myometrial tissue for predicting postpartum blood loss in women with placenta previa and low-lying placenta.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a nomogram model that combines radiomics features, clinical factors, and coagulation function indexes (CFI) to predict intraoperative blood loss (IBL) during cesarean sections, and to explore its application in optimizing perioperative management and reducing maternal morbidity.
methodsIn this retrospective consecutive series study, a total of 346 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (156 for training and 68 for internal test, center 1; 122 for external test, center 2) were included. IBL+ was defined as more than 1000 mL estimated blood loss during cesarean sections. The prediction models of IBL were developed based on machine-learning algorithms using CFI, radiomics features, and clinical factors. ROC analysis was performed to evaluate the performance for IBL diagnosis.
resultsThe support vector machine model incorporating all three modalities achieved an AUC of 0.873 (95% CI 0.769-0.941) and a sensitivity of 1.000 (95% CI 0.846-1.000) in the internal test set, with an AUC of 0.806 (95% CI 0.725-0.872) and a sensitivity of 0.873 (95% CI 0.799-0.922) in the external test set. It was also scored significantly higher than the CFI model (P = 0.035) on the internal test set, and both the CFI (P = 0.002) and radiomics-CFI models (P = 0.007) on the external test set. Additionally, the nomogram constructed based on three modalities achieved an internal testing set AUC of 0.960 (95% CI 0.806-0.999) and an external testing set AUC of 0.869 (95% CI 0.684-0.967) in the pregnant population without a pernicious placenta previa. It is noteworthy that the AUC of the proposed model did not show a statistically significant improvement compared to the Clinical-CFI model in both internal (P = 0.115) and external test sets (P = 0.533).
conclusionThe proposed model demonstrated good performance in predicting intraoperative blood loss (IBL), exhibiting high sensitivity and robust generalizability, with potential applicability to other surgeries such as vaginal delivery and postpartum hysterectomy. However, the performance of the proposed model was not statistically significantly better than that of the Clinical-CFI model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38896245What 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.