ArticleScientific reports2026
A novel approach to preeclampsia early prediction addressing predictive uncertainty due to missing data in clinical dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Preeclampsia (PE) is a disease that seriously threatens the health of pregnant women, and early intervention significantly reduce its incidence in high-risk mothers. To identify PE high-risk mother with a certain level of confidence or higher, we aimed to develop a framework for early prediction of preeclampsia (PE), which provides risk scores along with its associated uncertainty score due to missing data in clinical datasets. We built a machine learning model using a multi-center retrospective clinical dataset of 31,235 singleton pregnancies. We assessed the contribution of each variable to prediction variability using Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) values in order to quantify uncertainty score resulting from missing data. The score for each sample was calculated by summing the contributions of missing variables. Predictive performance was evaluated using samples with uncertainty scores below specific thresholds, with validation conducted via internal validation and external validation on an independent cohort. Internal validation revealed a strong inverse correlation between uncertainty score thresholds and AUROC (Spearman correlation coefficient: -0.999). At the threshold of 0.11 of the minimum possible level, the AUROC reached 0.978, compared to 0.845 when uncertainty was not considered. In external validation, the AUROC reached 0.994 at the same threshold, compared to 0.693 when uncertainty was not considered. Our framework demonstrated high predictive performance in low-uncertainty samples, emphasizing its stability and effectiveness. This approach reduces the risk of overconfidence in high-uncertainty predictions and represents a more reliable method for PE prediction.
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.