ArticlePloS one2025
Development and validation of an interpretable longitudinal preeclampsia risk prediction using machine learning.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and predictive analytics in obstetric anesthesia: early warning for maternal complications.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
- Blood biomarker trajectories in ICU-directed prediction models - A scoping review.The EPMA journal · 2026Review
- Machine Learning for Dynamic and Short-Term Prediction of Preeclampsia Using Routine Clinical Data.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Interpretable clinical decision support systems in high-risk pregnancy: a scoping review of models, methods, and implementation.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for early prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus and preeclampsia: a systematic review of machine learning models and clinical decision support systems.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Review
- Complete blood count as a biomarker for preeclampsia with severe features diagnosis: a machine learning approach.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Preeclampsia is a pregnancy-specific disease characterized by new onset hypertension after 20 weeks of gestation that affects 2-8% of all pregnancies and contributes to up to 26% of maternal deaths. Despite extensive clinical research, current predictive tools fail to identify up to 66% of patients who develop preeclampsia. We sought to develop a tool to longitudinally predict preeclampsia risk. In this retrospective model development and validation study, we examined a large cohort of patients who delivered at three hospitals in the New England region between 05/2015 and 05/2023. We used sociodemographic, clinical diagnoses, family history, laboratory, and vital signs data. For external validation, we used the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b) cohort (2010-2013), which contained data from eight external sites in the US. Models were developed at eight gestational time points using logistic regression, elastic net, naïve-Bayes, random forest, xgboost, and deep neural network methods. We used Shapley values to investigate the relationships between features. Our study population (N = 101,357) had an incidence of preeclampsia of 6.1% (N = 6,160). Model AUCs ranged from 0.71-0.80 (95%CI 0.69-0.82), externally validated in the nuMoM2b cohort with an AUC range of 0.57-0.70 (95%CI 0.55-0.73). No significant differences in performance were found based on race and ethnicity. As these novel models identify more patients at risk for developing preeclampsia, the benefits of this approach need to be balanced with the need for surveillance in a larger at-risk population. This novel preeclampsia prediction approach allows clinicians to identify at-risk patients early and provide personalized predictions throughout pregnancy.
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.