ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Construction and comparison of preeclampsia prediction models using logistic regression and machine learning.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePreeclampsia is a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Early identification of women at high risk is essential for timely prevention and improved outcomes.
methodsIn this study, clinical data as well as ultrasound examination results from 404 pregnant women, among whom 45 suffered and 359 did not suffer from preeclampsia, were retrospectively analyzed. Independent predictors were found via multivariable logistic regression. With these predictors, four classification models involving logistic regression, support vector machine, random forests, and extreme gradient boosting are developed in this paper. The performance of all these four classification models is assessed via metrics such as area under receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration plots, and decision curves.
resultsMaternal age of 35 years or more, assisted reproductive technology, history of eclampsia, history of fetal growth restriction, and two placental blood flow indices - flow index and vascular flow index, were independent predictors. In the internal validations, logistic regression was characterized by the most favorable calibrated method, based on 10-fold out-of-fold prediction, with an intercept of − 0.325, slope of 0.811, and Brier of 0.090, suggesting its suitability as a probability-based predictive tool, while random forest produced the highest AUC of 0.781.
conclusionsLogistic regression appears most suitable for early screening as a probability-based risk tool due to its favorable calibration and interpretability, pending external validation and recalibration. These models quantify statistical associations between routinely collected predictors and preeclampsia in this retrospective cohort; they do not imply causality and require external validation before prospective clinical use.
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.