ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Identifying High-Risk Pre-Term Pregnancies Using the Fetal Heart Rate and Machine Learning.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Transforming perinatal health with AI-predictive models in precision and digital innovations for maternal and fetal well-being: a systematic review.Oxford open digital health · 2026Article
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
Fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring is ubiquitous in antenatal care, yet human visual interpretation poorly predicts adverse pregnancy outcomes. Meanwhile, preterm gestations carry a high burden of stillbirth and severe fetal compromise, where earlier identification of high-risk pregnancies may justify iatrogenic preterm delivery to prevent avoidable fetal death. We analyzed 4867 antepartum FHR recordings from pre-term pregnancies meeting at least one of ten adverse outcome criteria alongside 4014 term uncomplicated controls. Seven clinically validated FHR features were extracted from each trace, and six machine-learning classifiers were trained on 80% of the data (7105 samples) using k-fold cross-validation; the remaining 20% (1776 samples) formed an internal validation cohort. The random forest demonstrated the best performance, achieving an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.88) during training and 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90) on validation, with good calibration (Brier score 0.14). Median AUC across individual adverse outcomes was 0.85 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.81-0.89) and exceeded 0.80 at all gestational ages assessed; sensitivity and specificity at the Youden threshold were 76.2% and 87.5%, respectively. Decision-curve analysis demonstrated net benefit across a range of clinically relevant probability thresholds. These findings indicate that data-driven interpretation of antepartum FHR can stratify risk in pre-term pregnancies with high accuracy and may support earlier, evidence-based clinical decision-making, particularly in resource-limited settings where specialist expertise is limited.
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.