ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
The power of machine learning models in predicting gestational diabetes mellitus.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Fetal Macrosomia Using Maternal: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of an Adaptive Penguin-Improved LSTM Model Integrating Natural Language Processing for Early Prediction of Pregnancy Syndrome Risks.Birth defects research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with various adverse outcomes in pregnancy for the mother and the baby. Precise prediction of GDM trends are crucial for public health. Machine learning (ML) models have emerged as powerful tools for disease prediction, demonstrating superior results compared to traditional methods. As a result, we set out to assess the effectiveness of ML models for predicting GDM.
methodsThis was a retrospective study that used the clinical and demographic information of all mothers admitted for delivery to a primary referral tertiary center located in Bandar Abbas, Iran, from January 2020 to January 2022. The input data were employed in seven ML models. To evaluate the diagnostic potential of each model, we utilized the accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), precision, recall, and F1 score.
resultsThe incidence rate of GDM was 20.9%. Models utilizing Boosting techniques, particularly CatBoost and XGBoost, excelled in predicting GDM compared to other models, however the prediction power was not high. These two models yielded the best average AUC (approximately 0.64 to 0.66) and also the top average Recall (approximately 0.43 to 0.52). In terms of all performance metrics, CatBoost demonstrated the best capability in predicting GDM with acceptable accuracy and average recall. BMI, maternal age, gestational age, maternal education, maternal residency, fetal gender, history of abortion, and parity were among the top 10 features that highly predicted GDM. Conversely, factors like intrauterine fetal demise, infertility, cardiovascular issues, COVID-19, substance abuse, multiple births, anemia, and a history of stillbirth exhibited nearly zero significance across nearly all models due to their low prevalence or lack of diversity.
conclusionCatBoost model had a higher performance in predicting GDM, however the prediction power was not so high.
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.