ArticleAJOG global reports2026
Eclampsia risk prediction across diverse U.S. populations using CDC data: machine learning versus ACOG checklists.
Article in AJOG global reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Various tools are employed in clinical practice to predict (pre)eclampsia. Artificial intelligence offers a promising approach for identifying people at risk. More data is needed on models trained for diverse populations. Objective: This study aimed to develop machine learning prediction models for eclampsia utilizing CDC data from 3.6 million births in 2022, compare them to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) checklist, and assess their applicability to various population subgroups. Study design: Machine learning models were trained on predictors outlined by the ACOG, and available pregnancy characteristics in vital statistics. The best model was then applied on 6 subsets-American Indian or Alaska, Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander, Asian, Black/African American, mixed heritage, lower income, and being born abroad. Results: The ACOG checklist applied on this cohort had a true-positive rate of 81.4% for predicting eclampsia and a false-positive rate of 68.9%. Logistic regression, Random Forest, LightGBM and XGBoost achieved an Area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic-curve of 0.64, recall rates around 50% and false-positive rates around 25%. The Area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic-curve was lower among individuals identifying as Black/African American, American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and those born abroad or with lower income. Conclusion: The ACOG checklist had a very high false-positive rate but achieved a high detection rate, while requiring less computational resources than the machine learning models. Demographic biases and variability in machine learning model performance highlight the need for external validation tailored to specific populations.
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.