ArticleHeliyon2024
A stepwise prediction and interpretation of gestational diabetes mellitus: Foster the practical application of machine learning in clinical decision.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Enhancing Early Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Through Data Augmentation and Feature Guidance: Model Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Predictive performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant women: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Early Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Using First-Trimester Laboratory Parameters.Cureus · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for predicting and preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes addressing bias and clinical translation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Gestational Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning has shown to be an effective method for early prediction and intervention of Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), which greatly decreases GDM incidence, reduces maternal and infant complications and improves the prognosis. However, there is still much room for improvement in data quality, feature dimension, and accuracy. The contributions and mechanism explanations of clinical data at different pregnancy stages to the prediction accuracy are still lacking. More importantly, current models still face notable obstacles in practical applications due to the complex and diverse input features and difficulties in redeployment. As a result, a simple, practical but accurate enough model is urgently needed. Design and methods: In this study, 2309 samples from two public hospitals in Shenzhen, China were collected for analysis. Different algorithms were systematically compared to build a robust and stepwise prediction system (level A to C) based on advanced machine learning, and models under different levels were interpreted. Results: XGBoost reported the best performance with ACC of 0.922, 0.859 and 0.850, AUC of 0.974, 0.924 and 0.913 for the selected level A to C models in the test set, respectively. Tree-based feature importance and SHAP method successfully identified the commonly recognized risk factors, while indicated new inconsistent impact trends for GDM in different stages of pregnancy. Conclusion: A stepwise prediction system was successfully established. A practical tool that enables a quick prediction of GDM was released at https://github.com/ifyoungnet/MedGDM.This study is expected to provide a more detailed profiling of GDM risk and lay the foundation for the application of the model in practice.
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.