ReviewObstetrics & gynecology science2026
Artificial intelligence in preterm birth prediction: a narrative review of current approaches and clinical applicability.
Review in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preterm birth remains the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide, affecting approximately 13.4 million births annually. Despite advances in our understanding of risk factors, current clinical prediction methods have demonstrated limited accuracy in individual risk stratification. This narrative review examines the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for preterm birth prediction and evaluates the methodological quality and clinical applicability across different data modalities. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to develop and validate machine learning models for predicting spontaneous preterm births. AI approaches include electronic health record-based models, deep learning for ultrasound image analysis, cervical texture and radiomics feature extraction, elastography-derived parameters, and multi-omics integration using transformer architectures. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values range from 0.61 to 0.89 across modalities. However, the systematic reviews identified significant methodological limitations; 79% of the studies had a high risk of bias according to the prediction model risk-of-bias assessment tool criteria, with a median transparent reporting of multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) adherence of only 49%. Common deficiencies include inadequate sample sizes, a lack of external validation, and failure to report calibration metrics. Although AI-based prediction shows promise, substantial improvements in methodological rigor are required before clinical implementation. Priority areas include rigorous external validation, adherence to TRIPOD+AI reporting standards, and prospective evaluation of clinical utility.
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.