ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Risk factors and machine learning prediction models for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-Trimester Hepatobiliary and Inflammatory Composite Indices as Candidate Markers for Subsequent Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Early Precise Prediction and Severe Risk Stratification of Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy: Advances and Future Directions in Clinical Translation from Traditional Models to Artificial Intelligence and Multi-Omics Technologies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The influence of serum sterol sulfotransferase, ANGPTL8, and SDC1 on liver function in patients with intrahepatic cholestasis during pregnancy.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2026Article
- Analyzing the association between ferritin levels and ICP using machine learning algorithms: a retrospective case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Predicting Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cohort Study of a Comprehensive Clinical Prediction Model.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Observational
- Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy: Neonatal Impact Through the Lens of Current Evidence.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Management, and Future Directions-A Review of the Literature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: An Updated Systematic Review of Their Role in Obstetrics and Midwifery.Cureus · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is a liver disorder that occurs in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy and is associated with a significant risk of fetal complications, including premature birth and fetal death. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of ICP is predominantly based on the presence of pruritus in pregnant women and elevated serum total bile acid. However, this approach may result in missed or delayed diagnoses. Therefore, it is essential to explore the risk factors associated with ICP and to accurately identify affected individuals to enable timely prophylactic interventions. The existing literature exhibits a paucity of studies employing artificial intelligence to predict ICP. Therefore, developing machine learning-based diagnostic and severity classification models for ICP holds significant importance.
methodsThis study included ICP patients and some healthy pregnant women from Jiaxing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital in China between July 2020 and October 2023. We collected clinical data during their pregnancies and selected the top 11 critical risk factors through univariable and lasso regression analysis. The dataset was randomly divided into training and testing cohorts. Thirteen machine learning techniques, including Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Artificial Neural Network, were employed. Based on their various classification performances on the training set, the top five models were selected for internal validation.
resultsThe dataset included 798 participants (300 normal, 312 mild, and 186 severe cases). Through univariable and lasso regression analysis, total bile acid, gamma-glutamyl transferase, multiple pregnancy, lymphocyte percentage, hematocrit, neutrophil percentage, prothrombin time, Aspartate aminotransferase, red blood cell count, lymphocyte count and platelet count were identified as risk factors of ICP. The AUCs of the selected top five models ranged from 0.9509 to 0.9614. The CatBoost model achieved the best performance, with an AUC of 0.9614 (95% confidence interval, 0.9377-0.9813), an accuracy of 0.9085, a precision of 0.8930, a recall of 0.9059, and a F1-score of 0.8981.
conclusionsWe identified risk factors for ICP and developed machine learning models based on these factors. These models demonstrated good performance and can be used to help predict whether pregnant women have ICP and the degree of ICP (mild or severe).
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.