ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Predicting failed trial of labor in advanced-age primiparas: development and validation of a clinical nomogram.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith rising rates of delayed childbearing in China, clinical decision-making for advanced-age primiparas (≥ 35 years) is challenging, often leading to unnecessary cesarean sections or failed labor trials. This study aimed to develop and validate a model to predict labor failure risk in term, singleton, cephalic-presenting advanced-age primiparas.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 1344 women from Peking University First Hospital (October 2019–September 2022) was used for model development. Predictors were selected using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, followed by multivariable logistic regression to construct the final model. Model performance was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Internal validation was performed with 1000‑sample bootstrapping, and external validation was conducted on an independent cohort of 601 women from the Daxing Branch (May 2024–April 2025).
resultsThe trial of labor success rates were 67.4% and 71.0% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Eleven predictors were identified: increased gestational weight gain, higher pre-pregnancy BMI, advanced gestational age, estimated fetal weight ≥ 4.0 kg, maternal anemia, abnormal amniotic fluid volume, premature rupture of membranes, hypertensive disorders, and labor induction were risk factors; greater maternal height and epidural analgesia were protective. The model showed good discrimination with an AUC of 0.751 in the development cohort, remained stable at 0.741 after internal validation, and achieved 0.759 in external validation, indicating strong generalizability. Calibration plots demonstrated good agreement between predicted and observed outcomes, and decision curve analysis confirmed clinical utility.
conclusionsThis validated prediction model effectively identifies high-risk advanced-age primiparas, aiding delivery mode counseling and personalized care. Prioritizing gestational weight control, anemia correction, and epidural analgesia could improve vaginal birth rates and optimize outcomes.
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.