ArticleDigital health
Machine learning models for estimating fetal weight based on ultrasonographic biometry: Development and validation study.
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.
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.
- Comparison of Johnsons, Inslers formula and ultrasound for estimating fetal weight.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2026Article
- Established machine learning matches tabular foundation models in clinical predictions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
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
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.