ArticleScientific reports2024
Ensemble learning for fetal ultrasound and maternal-fetal data to predict mode of delivery after labor induction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- External validation of a machine learning model for delivery mode prediction after induction.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Championing maternal health and reducing maternal mortality: a global multidisciplinary imperative.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Does infant birthweight percentile identify mothers at risk of severe morbidity? A Canadian population-based cohort study.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2025Article
- Review
- Artificial intelligence assisted common maternal fetal planes prediction from ultrasound images based on information fusion of customized convolutional neural networks.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Providing adequate counseling on mode of delivery after induction of labor (IOL) is of utmost importance. Various AI algorithms have been developed for this purpose, but rely on maternal-fetal data, not including ultrasound (US) imaging. We used retrospectively collected clinical data from 808 subjects submitted to IOL, totaling 2024 US images, to train AI models to predict vaginal delivery (VD) and cesarean section (CS) outcomes after IOL. The best overall model used only clinical data (F1-score: 0.736; positive predictive value (PPV): 0.734). The imaging models employed fetal head, abdomen and femur US images, showing limited discriminative results. The best model used femur images (F1-score: 0.594; PPV: 0.580). Consequently, we constructed ensemble models to test whether US imaging could enhance the clinical data model. The best ensemble model included clinical data and US femur images (F1-score: 0.689; PPV: 0.693), presenting a false positive and false negative interesting trade-off. The model accurately predicted CS on 4 additional cases, despite misclassifying 20 additional VD, resulting in a 6.0% decrease in average accuracy compared to the clinical data model. Hence, integrating US imaging into the latter model can be a new development in assisting mode of delivery counseling.
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.