ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence for Early Detection of Preeclampsia and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Performance.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Evaluation of an Adaptive Penguin-Improved LSTM Model Integrating Natural Language Processing for Early Prediction of Pregnancy Syndrome Risks.Birth defects research · 2026Observational
- Clinical and Metabolic Predictors of Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancies Complicated by Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Early Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Using First-Trimester Laboratory Parameters.Cureus · 2026Article
- Linking Oxidative Stress to Placental Dysfunction: The Key Role of Mitochondria in Trophoblast Function.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for predicting and preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes addressing bias and clinical translation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Oxidative dyslipidemia in early pregnancy: integrating atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) and uric acid (UA) to refine preeclampsia risk stratification.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for early prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus and preeclampsia: a systematic review of machine learning models and clinical decision support systems.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preeclampsia (PE) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are major contributors to maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Early detection is critical, yet current approaches, such as clinical risk scores for PE and glucose challenge/oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) screening for GDM, often show limited sensitivity and variable predictive accuracy. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer promising avenues for enhancing early prediction and diagnosis. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, synthesized evidence from five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library) covering January 2020-July 2025. Eligible studies included both model development and validation efforts in pregnant populations. Data were extracted on study characteristics, AI model types, and diagnostic performance metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, reflecting strict eligibility requirements and limited high-quality research in this area. AI models frequently achieved strong performance, with area under the curve (AUC) values often >0.85. For PE, a neural network model externally validated in Spain achieved AUCs of 0.920 and 0.913 for early and preterm PE, with sensitivity up to 84%. For GDM, an XGBoost model achieved an AUC of 0.946 with an accuracy of 87.5%, while a Random Forest model reached a sensitivity of 75-85% and a specificity of 88-91%. Ensemble methods generally outperformed logistic regression. Seven studies were judged low risk of bias, while two were high risk, particularly in participant selection and analysis domains. Several models also demonstrated good calibration and positive net benefit on decision curve analysis, comparable to established clinical tools. AI models show substantial potential for early detection of PE and GDM, though heterogeneity and limited external validation remain barriers. Future research should prioritize multicenter, prospective validation, standardized reporting, and attention to equity and generalizability to ensure safe and effective translation into clinical practice.
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.