ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Interpretable machine-learning-based prediction of postpartum haemorrhage in normal vaginal births in Shanghai, China.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postpartum haemorrhage is the most common complication associated with vaginal birth and a principal cause of maternal mortality. While clinical guidelines suggest that the majority of postpartum haemorrhage cases can be averted through precise prediction and scientific management that utilise assessment tools, existing tools for predicting postpartum haemorrhage in vaginal births have demonstrated inadequacies. Aim: To develop a predictive model for postpartum haemorrhage in vaginal births based on machine-learning algorithms. Methods: We selected pregnant women who gave birth vaginally at a tertiary-level obstetrics and gynaecology hospital in Shanghai, China, from July 2023 to August 2024. Multidimensional data were collected on demographic factors of pregnant women and midwives, along with their antenatal factors (e.g., previous medical history, current medical history, laboratory indicators, and psychosocial factors) and intrapartum factors (e.g., induction techniques; the first, second, and third stages of labour; and other factors). Five predictive models were constructed using machine-learning algorithms, and these models were subsequently validated and evaluated for performance. We applied the SHapley Additive exPlanations tool to conduct an interpretative analysis of the optimal model. Findings: A total of 1,225 women who underwent vaginal births were included in our final analysis, and following univariate analysis and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, 13 predictive variables were incorporated into the model. The eXtreme Gradient Boosting model exhibited the most superior performance. A midwife's years of service, degree of a woman's fear of childbirth, parity, duration of the second stage of labour, episiotomy, and companionship during labour and childbirth were identified as significant predictive factors. Moreover, the midwife's years of service and their companionship during childbirth had a moderating effect, which could effectively reduce the impact of childbirth fear and prolonged labour on the risk of postpartum haemorrhage. Conclusion: The postpartum haemorrhage prediction model for vaginal births developed in this study will furnish clinical midwives with a scientific and objective tool for assessing the risk of postpartum haemorrhage, thereby supporting timely risk stratification and management in the immediate postpartum period.
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.