SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning for predictive risk stratification in recurrent miscarriage: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: From Risk Prediction to ART Translation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- 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
- Factors associated with prior pregnancy loss among multigravid women: a retrospective machine learning analysis from an African population cohort.Frontiers in global women's 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrent miscarriage (RM), affecting 1–2% of couples, often lacks a clear etiology, complicating prognosis and care. Machine learning (ML) offers a potential paradigm shift by enabling robust risk stratification. This systematic review synthesizes the current landscape of ML applications for predicting RM, evaluating methodological quality, performance, and clinical translatability.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science until 9 December 2024. Studies developing or validating ML models for predicting RM or related pregnancy loss were included. Data on study characteristics, datasets, predictive features, ML methodologies, validation approaches, and performance metrics were extracted. Quality was assessed using the CHARMS tool.
resultsTwenty-six studies were included. Most were retrospective (n = 24) and originated from China (n = 14). Dataset sizes varied widely (n ≈ 78 to 338,904). Models incorporated diverse data, from clinical demographics (85% of studies) to embryological morphokinetics and omics biomarkers (26%). Tree-based ensemble algorithms, particularly Random Forest and XGBoost, demonstrated consistently high performance. While reported discriminative performance was often promising (AUC frequently > 0.80), critical methodological gaps were identified. There was a pervasive lack of robust external validation; most studies relied solely on internal validation. Reporting of calibration and handling of missing data was frequently inadequate, hindering assessment of clinical reliability.
conclusionML shows substantial promise for transforming RM prediction through multi-factorial risk stratification. However, the field’s current evolution from proof-of-concept to clinical tool is hampered by a significant validation and reproducibility gap. Future work must prioritize external validation, standardized reporting per TRIPOD-ML guidelines, and demonstration of clinical utility to bridge this gap and realize the potential of ML for improving patient care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD420251176304. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.