Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40386094›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Machine learning models for estimating fetal weight based on ultrasonographic biometry: Development and validation study.

Marcos Espinola-Sánchez, Antonio Limay-Rios, Andrés Campaña-Acuña, Silvia Sanca-Valeriano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marcos Espinola-SánchezFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Privada del Norte, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1005-5158
Antonio Limay-RiosUnidad Funcional de Investigación, Instituto Nacional Materno Perinatal, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6012-3705
Andrés Campaña-AcuñaUnidad Funcional de Investigación, Instituto Nacional Materno Perinatal, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6055-0416
Silvia Sanca-ValerianoUnidad Funcional de Investigación, Instituto Nacional Materno Perinatal, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0517-2114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Advances in machine learning (ML) offer an innovative approach to accurate fetal weight estimation by integrating multiple biometric and clinical variables. Objective: To develop and validate ML models for estimating fetal weight using biometric data obtained via ultrasonography, evaluating their accuracy and comparing them with traditional formulas, such as Hadlock and Shepard. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted at the National Maternal Perinatal Institute of Peru from 2009 to 2022, including 3525 low-risk pregnancies with singleton gestations. ML models, including Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest and TabPFN (Tabular Prior-data Fitted Network), were trained and validated using ultrasonographic measurements such as biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference, head circumference, femur length, and gestational age. Accuracy was assessed using the coefficient of determination ( Results: Data from the first study stage (2009-2018) indicated that the TabPFN model was the most accurate ( Conclusions: The TabPFN model outperformed traditional formulas, including Hadlock and Shepard, and other evaluated machine learning methods in estimating fetal weight. Its high predictive accuracy, robustness across temporally distinct cohorts, and independence from hyperparameter tuning support its potential as a reliable clinical decision-support tool in obstetric care.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceFetal weightmachine learningperinatal carepregnancyprenatalultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID40386094
PMCPMC12081966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.