ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Interpretable Machine Learning for Predicting Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Gestational Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects over 5% of pregnancies worldwide, elevating risks of type 2 diabetes post partum and complications such as fetal death, miscarriage, and congenital abnormalities. Effective GDM management is essential to balance glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes. Objective: We aim to develop interpretable machine learning models using GDM datasets for predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes and identifying key factors through the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) algorithm, thus supporting improved maternal and infant health. Methods: Data preprocessing and feature selection were performed, with adaptive synthetic sampling used to address class imbalance. Classification models, including logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting, were built and enhanced through the stacking method. Model interpretability was assessed with SHAP to quantify feature contributions. Results: Among 1670 patients, 200 experienced adverse outcomes. The stacking model outperformed individual models, achieving an accuracy of 85.6%, a sensitivity of 57.8%, a specificity of 95.9%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 on the test set. External validation on 159 patients showed a decline in performance (accuracy 83.6%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.67). SHAP analysis identified gestational age, glucose control, and diagnosis time among the most influential predictors, providing clinically meaningful insights into risk factors. Additionally, detailed SHAP-based visualization revealed the distribution of different feature values and their nonlinear impact on outcomes, as well as interaction effects between features. These interpretable analyses enabled a deeper understanding of individual and combined feature contributions, thereby enhancing clinical assessment capabilities. Conclusions: This study underscores the potential of machine learning in predicting adverse outcomes in GDM, with interpretable features offering valuable clinical insights to enhance pregnancy management and maternal-infant health.
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.