ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Enhancing decision-making in tubal ectopic pregnancy using a machine learning approach to expectant management: a clinical article.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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.
- Prediction of ectopic pregnancy using interpretable machine learning algorithms.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy: From Diagnosis to Treatment.Biomedicines · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo refine decision-making regarding expectant management for ectopic pregnancy (EP) using machine learning.
methodsThis retrospective study addressed expectant management in stable patients with ampullar EP, 2014-2022. Electronic medical record data included demographics, medical history, admission data, sonographic findings, and laboratory results. Follow-up data on βhCG levels and success rates were collected. Statistical analysis incorporated a Decision Tree Classifier, a decision tree-based machine learning model. The cohort was divided into training and testing groups for the machine learning model. This model was evaluated for accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score to predict success of expectant management.
resultsAmong 878 cases of EP, the expectant management cohort, comprising 221 cases, exhibited a success rate of 79.6%, with 20.4% requiring subsequent intervention. Mean βhCG levels on admission were 1056.8 ± 1323.5 mIU. The Decision Tree Classifier demonstrated an accuracy of 89%, with precision, recall, and F1 scores of 92%, 95%, and 94%, respectively. Factors for predicting success included clinical symptoms such as pain, the percentage decrease in βhCG levels, gestational age and βhCG level at decision day. Moderate impactful features were white blood cell count, gravidity and maximum tubal dimensions. Smoking status, duration (hours) from time of EP diagnosis to second βhCG test and marital status were minimal significant predictors of success.
conclusionThe Decision Tree-Based classifier model, with 92% precision and 95% recall, may be a valuable tool for predicting treatment success in hemodynamically stable patients with EP, particularly within the initial 24 h of βhCG follow-up.
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.