ArticleO&G open2025
Predicting Postpartum Hemorrhage Using Clinical Features Extracted With Large Language Models.
Article in O&G open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Postpartum Hemorrhage Transfusion Risk With a Machine Learning Model for Informed Consent: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for postpartum hemorrhage: a systematic review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) applied to prenatal clinical notes can predict postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) before the onset of labor and to compare model performance across outcome definitions, including a novel intervention-based definition.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study within a large regional health network. Two outcome definitions for PPH were used: 1) estimated or quantitative blood loss (EBL-QBL) extracted from clinical notes; and 2) a clinical intervention-based PPH definition (cPPH) designed to capture significant hemorrhage requiring intervention, including transfusion, uterotonics, Bakri balloon, or hysterectomy. We evaluated three PPH prediction pipelines: 1) structured data only-supervised machine learning that used structured electronic medical record data; 2) LLM-direct-direct prediction that used a fine-tuned LLM applied to clinical notes; and 3) LLM-extract-interpretable models that used LLM-extracted features combined with structured data. Model performance was evaluated using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) on a temporally held-out test set.
resultsAmong 19,992 deliveries, 1,156 patients (5.8%) met the EBL-QBL definition of PPH, 321 (1.6%) met the cPPH definition, and 309 (1.5%) met both definitions. The LLM-based direct prediction model achieved the highest AUROC for both PPH definitions (AUROC 0.79-0.80), followed by interpretable models that combined LLM-extracted features with structured data (AUROC 0.76-0.78). Models that used only structured data had the lowest AUROC (0.65-0.71). The LLM-extracted features approach identified 47 significant predictors, including established risk factors such as multiple gestation and previous cesarean delivery.
conclusionThese findings highlight the potential of LLM-based approaches to improve PPH risk stratification beyond structured data alone, with the feature extraction method offering a promising balance between predictive performance and clinical utility. Eventual integration of these methods into clinical workflows could improve early detection and guide targeted preventive interventions.
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.