ArticleScientific reports2025
Widely accessible prognostication using medical history for fetal growth restriction and small for gestational age in nationwide insured women.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Prevention of fetal growth restriction/small for gestational age (FGR/SGA) is adequate if screening is accurate. Ultrasound and biomarkers can achieve this goal; however, both are often inaccessible. This study aimed to develop, validate, and deploy a prognostic prediction model for screening FGR/SGA using only medical history. From a nationwide health insurance database (n = 1,697,452), we retrospectively selected visits to 22,024 healthcare providers of primary, secondary, and tertiary care. This study used machine learning (including deep learning) to develop prediction models using 54 medical-history predictors. After evaluating model calibration, clinical utility, and explainability, we selected the best by discrimination ability. We also externally validated the models using geographical and temporal splits of ~ 20% of the selected visits. The models were also compared with those from previous studies, which were rigorously selected by a systematic review of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected 169,746 subjects with 507,319 visits for predictive modeling from the database, which were 12-to-55-year-old female insurance holders who used the healthcare services. The best prediction model was a deep-insight visible neural network. It had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.742 (95% confidence interval 0.734 to 0.750) and a sensitivity of 49.09% (95% confidence interval 47.60-50.58% using a threshold with 95% specificity). The model was competitive against the previous models of 30 eligible studies of 381 records, including those using either ultrasound or biomarker measurements. We deployed a web application to apply the model. Our model used only medical history to improve accessibility for FGR/SGA screening. However, future studies are warranted to evaluate if this model's usage impacts patient outcomes.
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.