ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Construction and validation of a predictive model for sleep disorders among pregnant women.
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.
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.
- Development and validation of machine learning models for obstructive sleep apnea risk stratification in high-risk pregnant women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Performance of a two-item sleep quality measure (PSQI-2): a comprehensive evaluation in a multiethnic cohort (MESA Study).Research square · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSleep disorders are among the most common major problems during pregnancy. Most studies on sleep disorders of pregnant women are closely related to adverse birth outcomes. In this study, our aim was to develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of sleep disorders in pregnant women.
methodsA total of 2,467 healthy pregnant women were enrolled and randomly partitioned into a training set and a validation set at a ratio of 7:3. During the variable selection stage, the Pearson's chi-square test was employed to identify variables with a p-value below 0.05, which were then designated as candidate variables for subsequent logistic regression analysis. Concurrently, the LASSO regression technique was utilized to sift through and isolate the most valuable variables. Ultimately, we developed binary Logistic regression models predicated on the Pearson's chi-square test (Model 1) and the LASSO regression (Model 2). The performance of the nomograms was evaluated using the Bootstrap resampling procedure, the sensitivity and specificity of the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC), the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsA total of 439 (25.4%) pregnant women in the training set and 208 (28.1%) in the validation set exhibited sleep disorder, respectively. The prediction models shared 6 risk factors (age, anxiety, depression, family functions, degree of pregnancy reaction, pre-pregnancy physical condition). In the Model 1, the sensitivity was 69.4%, and specificity was 59.6%. When pregnancy weeks, residence, only child were included in Model 2, the sensitivity was 82.4% and specificity was 54.8%. In the validation set, the areas under the curve of the Model 1 and Model 2 were 0.678 (0.635, 0.720), and 0.719 (0.678, 0.761), respectively. The risk prediction model of sleep disorders in pregnant women showed that the calibration curve is approximately distributed along the reference line. Decision curve analyses demonstrated a favorable net benefit within the range of the threshold probability in the nomograms.
conclusionModel 2 exhibited superior performance, can serve as a convenient and reliable tool for predicting the risk probability of sleep disorders in pregnant women.
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.