ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Prediction of caesarean section birth using machine learning algorithms among pregnant women in a district hospital in Ghana.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning algorithms may contribute to improving maternal and child health, including determining the suitability of caesarean section (CS) births in low-resource countries. Despite machine learning algorithms offering a more robust approach to predicting/diagnosing a health-related problem, research on their use in determining CS birth is scarce in sub-Saharan Africa. This study therefore aimed to compare the performance of five machine learning techniques in predicting CS birth among pregnant women in a district hospital in Ghana.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study that used retrospective data from medical records of pregnant women who delivered at a district hospital in Ghana. A clinical decision support system for predicting CS birth was developed using five machine learning techniques including logistic regression, Support Vector Machines, Naïve Bayes, Random Forest and Extreme Gradient Boosting. Measures such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC-ROC) were used for the model performance.
resultsOf a total of 2310 deliveries, the prevalence of CS birth was 37.7% with previous CS being the most prevalent indication. The Random Forest model showed the best performance for predicting CS birth with an accuracy of 0.981, recall of 0.994, F1 score of 0.985 and an AUC-ROC of 0.988. The Naïve Bayes model followed with an accuracy of 0.965, recall of 0.967, F1 score of 0.972 and AUC-ROC of 0.986. The top five most important predictors proved to be diastolic (0.0906) and systolic (0.0848) blood pressures, maternal age (0.0756), previous CS (0.0641) and marital status (0.0400).
conclusionThis study demonstrated that although all five machine learning techniques had good performance in determining CS births, the Random Forest model was superior to all the others in predicting them. This finding suggests that machine learning could help identify at-risk pregnant women for CS births, potentially supporting early interventions and informing policies in maternal healthcare.
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.