ArticleBMC women's health2024
Predicting risk of the subsequent early pregnancy loss in women with recurrent pregnancy loss based on preconception data.
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk prediction models for pregnancy outcomes in recurrent pregnancy loss: a narrative systematic review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Association between preconception serum homocysteine levels and early pregnancy loss in women with recurrent pregnancy loss.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Multivariable AI-based analysis of immune-lifestyle patterns associated with recurrent pregnancy loss: an exploratory retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Current Evidence, Limitations, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Can preconception hematologic and biochemical parameters predict the subsequent pregnancy loss in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Application of machine learning algorithm for prediction of abortion among reproductive age women in Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Levothyroxine supplementation and pregnancy outcomes in women with thyroid disorders: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.Human reproduction open · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor women who have experienced recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), it is crucial not only to treat them but also to evaluate the risk of recurrence. The study aimed to develop a risk predictive model to predict the subsequent early pregnancy loss (EPL) in women with RPL based on preconception data.
methodsA prospective, dynamic population cohort study was carried out at the Second Hospital of Lanzhou University. From September 2019 to December 2022, a total of 1050 non-pregnant women with RPL were participated. By December 2023, 605 women had subsequent pregnancy outcomes and were randomly divided into training and validation group by 3:1 ratio. In the training group, univariable screening was performed on RPL patients with subsequent EPL outcome. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and multivariate logistic regression were utilized to select variables, respectively. Subsequent EPL prediction model was constructed using generalize linear model (GLM), gradient boosting machine (GBM), random forest (RF), and deep learning (DP). The variables selected by LASSO regression and multivariate logistic regression were then established and compared using the best prediction model. The AUC, calibration curve, and decision curve (DCA) were performed to assess the prediction performances of the best model. The best model was validated using the validation group. Finally, a nomogram was established based on the best predictive features.
resultsIn the training group, the GBM model achieved the best performance with the highest AUC (0.805). The AUC between the variables screened by the LASSO regression (16-variables) and logistic regression (9-variables) models showed no significant difference (AUC: 0.805 vs. 0.777, P = 0.1498). Meanwhile, the 9-variable model displayed a well discrimination performance in the validation group, with an AUC value of 0.781 (95%CI 0.702, 0.843). The DCA showed the model performed well and was feasible for making beneficial clinical decisions. Calibration curves revealed the goodness of fit between the predicted values by the model and the actual values, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was 7.427, and P = 0.505.
conclusionsPredicting subsequent EPL in RPL patients using the GBM model has important clinical implications. Future prospective studies are needed to verify the clinical applicability.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with the registration number of ChiCTR2000039414 (27/10/2020).
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.