ArticleScientific reports2025
Proposing a machine learning-based model for predicting nonreassuring fetal heart.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Predictive Model for Intrapartum Cesarean Delivery in Multiparous Women After Active Labor Onset.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning model for identifying key risk factors in congenital heart disease prediction using questionnaire data: a retrospective case-control study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- The power of machine learning models in predicting gestational diabetes mellitus.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- A Machine Learning Approach to Predicting Household Smoke Exposure Risk in Somalia: An Analysis With SHAP Explanations.Environmental health insights · 2026Article
- Prediction of Neonatal Length of Stay in High-Risk Pregnancies Using Regression-Based Machine Learning on Computerized Cardiotocography Data.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Developing a prognostic model for predicting preterm birth using a machine learning algorithm.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Interpretable Machine Learning for Predicting Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Gestational Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Developing and validating a risk prediction model for caesarean delivery in Northwest Amhara comprehensive specialized hospitals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Application of machine learning in identifying risk factors for low APGAR scores.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Identifying determinants and predicting cesarean section delivery among Bangladeshi women using machine learning: Insight from BDHS 2022 Data.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Machine learning algorithms to predict epidural-related maternal fever: a retrospective study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Early prediction of low birth weight using boosting ensemble machine learning: A retrospective cohort study.Digital healthArticle
- Using machine learning to identify risk factors for Alzheimer's disease among older adults in the United States: The role of chronic and behavioral health.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reportsArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The capacity to forecast nonreassuring fetal heart (NFH) is essential for minimizing perinatal complications; therefore, this research aims to establish if a machine learning (ML) model can predict NFH. This was a retrospective analysis of information gathered from singleton cases over the gestational age of 28 weeks that sought vaginal delivery between January 2020 and January 2022. The information was acquired from the "Iranian Maternal and Neonatal Network."A predictive model was built using four statistical ML models (decision tree classification, random forest classification, extreme gradient boost classification, and permutation feature classification with k-nearest neighbors). Because of the limited studies on the identification of NFH predictors, we decided to use the Chi-Square test to compare demographic, obstetric, maternal, and neonatal factors to identify NFH predictors. Then, all variables with p-values less than 0.05 were considered potential NFH predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score were measured to evaluate their diagnostic performance. The incidence of NFH in our study population was 9.2%. Based on our findings NFH was more common in cases of intrauterine growth restriction, late-term, post-term, and preterm births, preeclampsia, placenta abruption, primiparous, induced labor, male fetus, and lower in birth with the presence of doula support. Random forest classification (AUROC: 0.77), decision tree classification and extreme gradient boost classification (AUROC: 0.76), and permutation feature classification with K-nearest neighbors (AUROC: 0.77), all showed good performance in predicting NFH. The higher performance belonged to random forest classification with an accuracy of 0.77 and precision of 0.72. Although this study found that the classification tree models performed well in predicting NFH, more research is needed to make a better conclusion on the performance of ML models in predicting NFH.
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.