ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Interpretable clinical decision support systems in high-risk pregnancy: a scoping review of models, methods, and implementation.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) powered by machine learning (ML) are increasingly recognized as valuable tools for improving maternal healthcare, particularly in the prevention of high-risk pregnancies. However, their adoption in real-world settings remains limited due to concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and integration into clinical workflows. Interpretable ML methods offer a promising solution by enhancing the usability and trustworthiness of these systems. This scoping review maps interpretable CDSS for maternal high-risk pregnancy prevention and intrapartum management, including both ML and rule-based systems. We examined model characteristics, implementation and validation approaches, and interpretability methods. We searched PubMed and supplemented results with targeted screening in Google Scholar. Included studies reported interpretable outputs and clinical performance. Key data extracted encompassed study design, CDSS type, validation strategies, interpretability techniques, and clinical outcomes. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most ML studies used Random Forests or Support Vector Machines. non-ML systems commonly implemented standardized rules, scoring systems with early-warning alerts. Post hoc methods such as SHAP and LIME were frequently used. Reporting of code/data availability was variably documented, which may limited reproducibility. Most evaluations were retrospective, constraining generalizability. Future work should prioritize transparent, prospective, and open science practices, with interpretable outputs aligned to clinical reasoning for successful integration.
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.