Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41216970›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026

Machine learning versus traditional formulas for fetal weight estimation: An international multicenter study evaluating prediction accuracy across birth weight percentiles.

Omer Dor, Eran Ashwal, May Cohen, Ori Rottenstreich, Yariv Yogev, Noam Shomron, Misgav Rottenstreich

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Omer DorGray Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eran AshwalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
May CohenGray Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Ori RottenstreichThe Henry and Marilyn Taub Faculty of Computer Science, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Yariv YogevGray Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Noam ShomronGray Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9913-6124
Misgav RottenstreichSchool of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether machine learning (ML) offers improved birth weight prediction accuracy, since despite numerous models, the Hadlock formula remains the clinical standard.

methodsA multicenter retrospective study analyzed data from 9674 singleton pregnancies with estimated fetal weight (EFW) within 7 days of delivery. ML models-Linear Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, and Neural Networks-were trained using ultrasound and maternal features. Performance was measured by mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score for percentile categories.

resultsLightGBM and XGBoost outperformed Hadlock in overall weight estimation (MAPE ~0.065; RMSE ~252; MAE ~190). For birth weight percentiles (<3rd, <10th, >90th, >97th), ML showed marginal or comparable improvement. LightGBM had higher accuracy and F1 for extreme percentiles, whereas Hadlock showed slightly better recall in some cases.

conclusionML models, especially LightGBM and XGBoost, enhanced overall weight prediction but offered limited gains in identifying percentile-based risk. The Hadlock formula remains a strong tool for categorizing at-risk fetuses.

Indexed as

Birth WeightFetal WeightMachine LearningAdultFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography, Prenatalbirth weight predictionfetal weight estimationHadlock formulalarge for gestational agemachine learningpercentile predictionsmall for gestational age

Identifiers

PMID41216970
PMCPMC12988385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.