ArticleHeliyon2024
Applying machine learning in screening for Down Syndrome in both trimesters for diverse healthcare scenarios.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Integrating education-based interventions and machine learning for stunting prevention: A case study in East Lombok, Indonesia.Dialogues in health · 2026Article
- Advancements in machine learning and biomarker integration for prenatal Down syndrome screening.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- A Review of Artificial Intelligence-Based Down Syndrome Detection Techniques.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This paper describes the development of low-cost, effective, non-invasive machine learning-based prediction models for Down Syndrome in the first two trimesters of pregnancy in Vietnam. These models are adaptable to different situations with limited screening capacities at community-based healthcare facilities. Method: Ultrasound and biochemical testing alone and in combination, from both trimesters were employed to build prediction models based on k-Nearest Neighbor, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and Extreme Gradient Boosting algorithms. Results: A total of 7,076 pregnant women from a single site in Northern Vietnam were included, and 1,035 had a fetus with Down Syndrome. Combined ultrasound and biochemical testing were required to achieve the highest accuracy in trimester 2, while models based only on biochemical testing performed as well as models based on combined testing during trimester 1. In trimester 1, Extreme Gradient Boosting produced the best model with 94% accuracy and 88% AUC, while Support Vector Machine produced the best model in trimester 2 with 89% accuracy and 84% AUC. Conclusions: This study explored a range of machine learning models under different testing scenarios. Findings point to the potential feasibility of national screening, especially in settings without enough equipment and specialists, after additional model validation and fine tuning is performed.
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.