ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
External validation of a machine learning model for delivery mode prediction after induction.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No machine learning (ML) models for predicting delivery mode after labor induction (IOL) have been externally validated. We aimed to develop and validate one using medical records. Portuguese tertiary center data (n = 2434) were used for development and internal validation, and Consortium on Safe Labor data (n = 10,591) for external validation. Outcomes are vaginal delivery (VD) or cesarean section (CS). Internal validation employed different ML approaches, aiming for model simplification. Logistic regression performed best on internal validation: AUROC:0.793; F1-score:0.748; PPV:0.752, with good calibration and decision curve analysis (DCA), being selected for simplification. Simplified top-13 features model was selected for external validation: AUROC:0.808; F1-score:0.781; PPV:0.822, tending for VD (99.6%) while avoiding false-positives (0.5%). Calibration curves underestimated CS risk by 10-75%; DCA showed good net benefit. The model's good AUROC and DCA suggest clinical utility. Calibration curve underestimation of CS risk may result from outcome imbalance between datasets.
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.