ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Predicting low birth weight in Bangladesh using interpretable machine learning models.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow birth weight (LBW) remains a leading cause of neonatal mortality and long-term morbidity in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to develop and evaluate machine learning classifiers for predicting LBW using nationally representative survey data from Bangladesh, while explicitly distinguishing predictive modeling from causal inference.
methodsWe analyzed data from the 2022 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), yielding a final analytic sample of 3,400 mother-child pairs after complete-case exclusion. Survey weights, stratification, and clustering were incorporated into all modeling steps via sample_weight parameters and cluster-aware data splitting. Class imbalance was addressed using native class-weight optimization (scale_pos_weight, class_weight = "balanced") rather than synthetic oversampling to preserve survey representativeness. Seven machine learning classifiers were evaluated under a cluster-aware train-validation-test split. Model performance was assessed using discrimination metrics (AUROC, PR-AUC), calibration metrics (Brier score, slope, intercept), and 95% confidence intervals derived via stratified bootstrap resampling (B = 1,000). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used for model interpretability, with explicit framing of findings within a predictive context.
resultsXGBoost demonstrated the best calibrated and discriminative performance on the independent test set: AUROC = 0.828 (95% CI: 0.764-0.887), sensitivity = 0.711 (0.600-0.816), specificity = 0.847 (0.814-0.876), Brier score = 0.095 (0.077-0.114). SHAP analysis identified geographical division, birth order, paternal education, and household wealth as the most influential predictors. Variables non-significant in bivariate analysis but influential in XGBoost (e.g., child's sex, maternal age) likely contribute through higher-order interactions captured by tree-based ensembles. The positive association between antenatal care visits and predicted LBW risk likely reflects clinical triage patterns rather than causal harm.
conclusionsSurvey-aware machine learning, particularly XGBoost, provides a robust framework for LBW risk stratification in Bangladesh. While observational design precludes causal inference and external validation remains necessary, these findings support the potential utility of interpretable ML models for informing targeted maternal health interventions. Future work should prioritize prospective validation and incorporation of clinical biomarkers.
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.