ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence Applications in Obstetric Risk Prediction: A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Models for Preeclampsia.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A first-trimester mechanistic framework integrating three Physiopathologic biomarker domains for pre-eclampsia classification.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Comparison of Machine Learning Models and the FMF Competing-Risks Algorithm for First-Trimester Preeclampsia Screening in a Romanian Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning for Dynamic and Short-Term Prediction of Preeclampsia Using Routine Clinical Data.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for predicting and preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes addressing bias and clinical translation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Interpretable machine learning for predicting placental abruption in early-onset preeclampsia: model development and evaluation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preeclampsia remains a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. While traditional prediction models have shown limited accuracy, machine learning (ML) approaches offer promising alternatives by handling complex, non-linear relationships in multidimensional datasets. This systematic review evaluates the performance, methodological quality, and clinical applicability of ML models for preeclampsia prediction. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) for studies published until April 15, 2025, and included studies that developed or validated ML models predicting preeclampsia. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk-of-Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Eleven studies (n = 11, comprising 116,253 pregnancies) were included. Ensemble methods (XGBoost, Random Forest) demonstrated superior performance, with area under the curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.84 to 0.973. Key predictors included mean arterial pressure, prior preeclampsia, and the biomarkers placental growth factor (PlGF) and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A). Seven studies (63.6%) showed low overall risk of bias, while three (27.3%) had high risk due to analytical limitations. Only three studies (27.3%) conducted external validation. ML models, particularly ensemble methods, show excellent discriminative ability for preeclampsia prediction. However, heterogeneity in predictors and limited external validation constrain clinical translation. Future research should prioritize prospective validation studies with standardized outcome definitions and predictor sets.
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.