ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Predicting outcomes of expectant and medical management in early pregnancy miscarriage using machine learning to develop and validate multivariable clinical prediction models.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Determining risk factors predicting miscarriage among couples undergoing assisted reproductive treatment: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- First-Trimester CBC-Derived Inflammatory Indices for Prediction of Miscarriage: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether readily available patient, ultrasound and treatment outcome data can be used to develop, validate and externally test two machine learning (ML) models for predicting the success of expectant and medical management of miscarriage respectively.
methodsA retrospective, multi-site study of patients opting for expectant or medical management of miscarriage was undertaken. A total of 1075 patients across two hospital early pregnancy units were eligible for inclusion. Data pre-processing derived 14 features for predictive modelling. A combination of eight linear, Bayesian, neural-net and tree-based machine learning algorithms were applied to ten different feature sets. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) scores were the metrics used to demonstrate the performance of the best performing model and feature selection combination for the training, validation and external data set for expectant and medical management separately.
resultsParameters were in the majority well matched across training, validation and external test sets. The respective optimum training, validation and external test set AUC scores were as follows in the expectant management cohort: 0.72 (95% CI 0.67,0.77), 0.63 (95% CI 0.53,0.73) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.60,0.79) (Logistic Regression in combination with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)). The AUC scores in the medical management cohort were 0.64 (95% CI 0.56,0.72), 0.62 (95% CI 0.45,0.77) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.58,0.83) (Logistic Regression in combination with Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE)).
conclusionsPerformance of our expectant and medical miscarriage management ML models demonstrate consistency across validation and external test sets. These ML methods, validated and externally tested, have the potential to offer personalised prediction outcome of expectant and medical management of miscarriage.
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.