ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating how different balancing data techniques impact on prediction of premature birth using machine learning models.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Machine learning to predict adverse perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of preterm and low birth weight risk using a physiology based artificial neural network integrating hematological, dental, and periodontal index markers: a cross sectional study based on machine learning.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Premature birth can be defined as birth before 37 weeks of gestation, which is a significant global health issue, being the main cause for neonatal deaths. In this work, we evaluate machine learning models for predicting premature birth using Brazilian sociodemographic and obstetric data, focusing on the challenge of data imbalance, a common problem that can lead to biased predictions. We evaluate five data balancing techniques: Undersampling, Oversampling, and three Hybridsampling configurations where the minority class was increased by factors 2, 3, and 4. The machine learning models, including Decision Tree, Random Forest, and AdaBoost, are trained and evaluated on a dataset of over 483,000 cases. The use of the Hybridsampling approach resulted in an accuracy of 70%, a recall of 64%, and a precision of 74% in the Decision Tree model. Results show that Hybridsampling techniques significantly improves models' performance compared to Undersampling and Oversampling, highlighting the importance of a proper data balancing in predictive models for preterm birth. The relevance of our work is particularly significant for the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). By improving the accuracy of premature birth predictions, our models could assist healthcare providers in identifying at-risk pregnancies earlier, allowing for timely interventions. This integration could enhance maternal and neonatal care, reduce the incidence of preterm births, and potentially decrease neonatal mortality, especially in underserved regions.
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.