ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
An individualized risk prediction tool for ectopic pregnancy within the first 10 weeks of gestation based on machine learning algorithms.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Predictive Value of Systemic Inflammatory Markers from Failed Single-Dose Methotrexate Therapy in Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As the main cause of maternal deaths in early pregnancy, delayed diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy (EP) may lead to severe consequences. Patients with pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) exhibit a significantly higher incidence of EP and associated risks compared to the general population. Therefore, this study aims to construct an early prediction model to identify EP risk among patients with PUL and provide a valuable direction for clinical intervention. Methods: Retrospectively recruited 1896 patients with PUL within 10 weeks of gestation. Feature selection was done using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Logistic Regression (LR), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), Random Forest (RFC), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and CatBoost were used to construct the early risk prediction model of EP. The model's performance was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and the F1 score. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) algorithms ranked the feature importance for model output interpretation. Results: Among the PUL patients included in this study, 66 (4.08%) were diagnosed with EP. Key predictors selected for model construction included vaginal bleeding, progesterone, homogeneous adnexal mass, gravidity, hCG levels, history of cesarean section, abdominal tenderness, and history of pelvic surgery. Among the five models, the CatBoost algorithm demonstrated the best performance, achieving an AUROC of 0.930 (95% CI, 0.876-0.984) and an AUPRC of 0.685 (95% CI, 0.464-0.845). A user-friendly web-based platform was developed for EP risk assessment based on this model. According to SHAP analysis, the three most important clinical predictors were vaginal bleeding, progesterone levels, and the presence of a homogeneous adnexal mass. Conclusion: This study employed the CatBoost algorithm to develop an individualized risk prediction model by integrating multiple features from the initial visit. This model enhances the detection rate of EP in patients with PUL during early pregnancy. Additionally, we created a web-based tool, offering potential for future clinical applications.
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.