ArticleGlobal epidemiology2026
Machine learning-based identification of determinants of pulse pressure in pregnant women.
Article in Global epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulse pressure (PP) is an important marker of arterial stiffness and cardiovascular risk during pregnancy, yet its longitudinal determinants remain insufficiently characterized, particularly in low-resource settings. Objective: To identify determinants of longitudinal pulse pressure among pregnant women using machine learning approaches and to compare their predictive performance with a conventional mixed-effects modeling framework. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 549 pregnant women attending public antenatal care services at Bishoftu General Hospital, Oromia region, Ethiopia, comprising 2760 repeated pulse pressure measurements. Pulse pressure was modeled as a continuous longitudinal outcome. Predictors included maternal sociodemographic characteristics, clinical measurements, obstetric history, and gestational age at each visit. A generalized linear mixed model, random forest regression, and XGBoost regression were applied. Participant-level data partitioning was used for model training and evaluation, and predictive performance was assessed using root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE). Results: Tree-based machine learning models showed improved predictive performance compared with the mixed-effects model, indicating the presence of nonlinear and time-dependent relationships between predictors and pulse pressure trajectories. Maternal age, body weight, gestational age, and pulse pressure values from previous visits consistently contributed to pulse pressure prediction. Conclusion: Machine learning methods applied to longitudinal antenatal data provide a flexible and effective framework for modeling pulse pressure dynamics during pregnancy. This approach enhances understanding of key clinical and temporal determinants and may support improved cardiovascular risk assessment in maternal health care settings.
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.