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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.