ArticleScientific reports2024
Development of a machine learning approach for prediction of red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing Cesarean section at a single institution.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Timing of intrapartum transfusion among obstetric patients, stratified by admission and discharge haemoglobin, relative to anaesthesia care: A retrospective cohort study.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite recent advances in surgical techniques and perinatal management in obstetrics for reducing intraoperative bleeding, blood transfusion may occur during a cesarean section (CS). This study aims to identify machine learning models with an optimal diagnostic performance for intraoperative transfusion prediction in parturients undergoing a CS. Additionally, to address model performance degradation due to data imbalance, this study further investigated the variation in predictive model performance depending on the ratio of event to non-event data (1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 model datasets and raw data).The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) were evaluated to compare the predictive accuracy of different machine learning algorithms, including XGBoost, K-nearest neighbor, decision tree, support vector machine, multilayer perceptron, logistic regression, random forest, and deep neural network. We compared the predictive performance of eight prediction algorithms that were applied to five types of datasets. The intraoperative transfusion in maternal CS was 7.2% (1020/14,254). XGBoost showed the highest AUROC (0.8257) and AUPRC (0.4825) among the models. The most significant predictors for transfusion in maternal CS as per machine learning models were placenta previa totalis, haemoglobin, placenta previa partialis, and platelets. In all eight prediction algorithms, the change in predictive performance based on the AUROC and AUPRC according to the resampling ratio was insignificant. The XGBoost algorithm exhibited optimal performance for predicting intraoperative transfusion. Data balancing techniques employed to alter the event data composition ratio of the training data failed to improve the performance of the prediction model.
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.