Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41093919›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Prediction of stillbirth using machine learning methods.

Woo Jeng Kim, Sae Kyung Choi, Yun Sung Jo, Su Mi Kim, Jae Eun Shin, Ki Cheol Kil, Yeon Hee Kim, Jeong Ha Wie, Subeen Hong, Minjoo Lee and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Woo Jeng KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Sae Kyung ChoiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Yun Sung JoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Su Mi Kim *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. alex4yu@catholic.ac.kr.
Jae Eun ShinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Republic of Korea.
Ki Cheol KilDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yeon Hee KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu, Republic of Korea.
Jeong Ha WieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Subeen HongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Minjoo LeeMedical Excellence Inc, Seoul, Korea.
Hanul HongInnerwave Co., Ltd, Seoul, Korea.
Oyoung KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hwan Seok ChoiInnerwave Co., Ltd, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun Sun Ko *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. mongkoko@catholic.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study developed a machine learning model to predict stillbirth using retrospective data from 32,953 singleton pregnancies at multi-centers in South Korea. Variables were collected at baseline, E1 (before 13 weeks of pregnancy), and T0 (before 28 weeks of pregnancy). Each separate cohort (all stillbirths, early stillbirths, late stillbirths) was randomly divided into training and test sets at a 7:3 ratio. Extreme Gradient Boosting Machine algorithm was used to make original models with a full set of variables and simplified models with certain variables from Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values. The prediction model of whole cohort for all stillbirths achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of 0.720 (baseline) and 0.740 (E1) with an area under precision-recall curve (AUPR) value of 0.016 (baseline) and 0.019 (E1). The prediction models for early and late stillbirths achieved similar results. For the original model for late stillbirth at T0 achieved AUC of 0.781 and AUPR of 0.015. A simplified model for late stillbirth at T0 using top-ranked SHAP variables demonstrated similar performance with AUC of 0.759 and AUPR of 0.133. Our machine learning model for predicting the late stillbirth in East Asian women in singleton pregnancies with variables before 28 gestational weeks might be helpful for evaluating individual risks.

Indexed as

Machine LearningStillbirthAdultAlgorithmsArea Under CurveFemaleGestational AgeHumansPregnancyRepublic of KoreaRetrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID41093919
PMCPMC12528460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.