ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Machine learning based classification in obstetrics: evaluating models, partitioning strategies, and key predictors in cardiotocography.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detecting fetal distress early and accurately is critical to the reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes. However, this proves to be a challenging task. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) provides a promising solution by facilitating the analysis of cardiotocography (CTG) signals in a more timely and precise manner. Despite this, AI in fetal monitoring faces several critical obstacles. In this study, we evaluated six experimental scenarios on a publicly available UCI CTG dataset consisting of 2,160 cases, each containing 21 features and examined how selected machine learning-based models, various data partitioning strategies, and input feature selection influence classification performance and predictor importance. We compare multiple classification models—Classification and Regression Trees (CART), C5, Random Tree, Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Radial Basis Function Network (RBF), and Support Vector Machines (SVM). According to our results, we were able to predict normal, suspect, and pathological cases with an overall accuracy ranging from 86.14% up to 96.92%. Our experiments shed light on how different dataset partitioning strategies affect the results and interpretability of significant predictors. In addition, we tested a scenario based on clinical parameters routinely acquired by our best practices in order to determine how these parameters may affect our model’s performance. Our findings provide practical recommendations for optimizing both the accuracy and interpretability of machine learning-based models. Furthermore, they emphasize the urgent need for larger, more comprehensive datasets as well as standardized definitions of outcomes. These insights aim to encourage clinical centers to create their own high-quality databases and collaborate across institutions, ultimately advancing the adoption of AI-driven decision-support tools in routine obstetric practice.
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.