ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Machine learning for preventing stillbirths: is it possible to transform data into life-saving insights?
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.
- Machine learning to predict adverse perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the performance of machine learning models using different data imputation techniques in different balancing scenarios, employing sociodemographic attributes and maternal health history, using data of a population from the state of Pernambuco, Brazil, to predict fetal death during pregnancy.
methodsWe used a dataset from a social program in Pernambuco, Brazil, covering the period from 2008 to 2022, that includes sociodemographic, prenatal, maternal and family health history data. We separated two scenarios with two balancing techniques to train the models, Random Undersampling (RU scenario) and Hybrid Undersampling 2x (H2X scenario) and we explored using four tree-based machine learning models, each of which was evaluated based on their performance and feature importance.
resultsThe models were evaluated under different metrics. The XGBoost model stood out with 81.06% specificity and the Random Forest model stood out with 67.73% sensitivity, in different scenarios. The attributes that most impacted the learning process were first prenatal care, age, education and interpregnancy interval.
conclusionThis application is particularly valuable in the context of social projects, such as those in Brazil, where innovative solutions can contribute to achieving the SDGs offering a unique perspective on the intersection of technology, healthcare, and social impact.
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.