ArticlePloS one2025
A scoping review and quality assessment of machine learning techniques in identifying maternal risk factors during the peripartum phase for adverse child development.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Maternal exposure to environmental risk factors (e.g., heavy metal exposure) or mental health problems during the peripartum phase has been shown to lead to negative and lasting impacts on child development and life in adulthood. Given the importance of identifying early markers within highly complex and heterogeneous perinatal factors, machine learning techniques emerge as a promising tool. The main goal of the current scoping review was to summarize the evidence on the application of machine learning techniques in predicting or identifying risk factors during peripartum for child development. A critical appraisal was also conducted to evaluate various aspects, including representativeness, data leakage, validation, performance metrics, and interpretability. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies published prior to the 14th of January 2025. Review selection and data extraction were performed by three independent reviewers. After removing duplicates, the searches yielded 10,336 studies, of which 60 studies were included in the final report. Among these 60 machine learning studies, a majority were pattern-focused, using machine learning primarily as a tool to more accurately describe associations between variables, while 16 studies were prediction-focused (26.7%), exploring the predictive performance of their models. For prediction-focused machine learning studies, a diverse range of methodologies was observed. The quality assessment showed that all studies had some important criteria that were not fully met, with deviations ranging from minor to major, limiting the interpretability and generalizability of the reported findings. Future research should aim at addressing these limitations to enhance the robustness and applicability of machine learning models in this field.
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.