Observational studyFrontiers in public health2026
Interpretable machine-learning model to accurately identify women at risk of excessive gestational weight gain.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To establish and validate interpretable machine-learning (ML) models for early assessment and identification of Chinese women at risk of excessive gestational weight gain (EGWG). Methods: We performed a prospective observational study with pregnant women whose gestational age averaged 19 weeks or less. These women attended the obstetric clinic of a tertiary hospital in CentralSouth China between January and June 2023, and again from April to May 2024. Women completed standardized questionnaires, and their gestational weight gain (GWG) was recorded until delivery. We conducted feature selection by applying the Boruta algorithm together with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm, We used four ML models-the logistic regression(LR), light gradient boosting machine(LightGBM), extreme gradient boosting(XGBoost), and random forest (RF) models-optimizing its hyperparameters by grid search and 5-fold crossvalidation. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), confusion matrix, kappa statistic, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. To enhance model interpretability, the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) framework was applied to quantify and rank the contribution of individual predictors. Based on the key predictive features, a web-based interactive calculator was developed using Python and the Flask micro-framework to facilitate clinical application. Results: We enrolled 578 pregnant women in all. The combined use of the Boruta and LASSO algorithms screened ten critical predictors. The LightGBM model showed superior predictive performance with an accuracy of 88.6%, sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 89.9%, kappa statistic of 0.770, and AUC of 0.926 (95% CI: 0.889-0.962) in the test cohort. The SHAP analysis indicated that the body image in pregnancy, protective motivation for gestational weight management, parity, the weekly frequency of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages, desserts, and Western-style fast food, and moderate-intensity physical activity time were the major determinants that influenced model prediction. An online calculator was developed and made available for clinicians at: http://39.103.64.176/. Conclusions: We established an interpretable ML model for predicting the risk of EGWG. The LGBM model exhibited higher predictive accuracy and may serves as a powerful tool for the early detection and individualized management of the EGWG risk among Chinese pregnant women.
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.