ArticleScience progress
Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-based fetal weight estimation and prediction modeling for low birth weight: A retrospective cohort study in Northwest Ethiopia.
Article in Science progress. 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
ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound-based fetal weight estimation and to develop and internally validate a prediction model for low birth weight.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted among 269 individuals.ResultsThe accuracy of ultrasound weight estimation was 72.9%, with 27.1% of estimates falling outside ±10% of actual birth weight. The Pearson correlation for estimated fetal weight and actual birth weight was 0.92. Using LASSO regression eight predictors were selected and entered in the multivariable analysis of which gestational age, estimated fetal weight, timing of estimation, and placental location were found significant. The original model demonstrated strong discrimination of AUC of 95.9% 95%CI (93.1-98.0%), and good calibration. Internal validation via 1000-bootstrap resampling yielded a bias-corrected AUC of 94.3%, indicating preserved predictive performance with minimal optimism. An integer-based risk score was derived to enhance clinical usability. The risk score model achieved acceptable discrimination (AUC = 76.8%, 95% CI: 70.0-83.0%) and good calibration (p = 0.301). Agreement between the full prediction model and the simplified risk score was fair (Cohen's Kappa = 0.353, p < 0.0001), indicating that the simplified score is best suited as a pragmatic bedside risk-stratification tool rather than a direct substitute for the full model. Women were stratified into low (0-10 points), medium (11-21), and high-risk (22-36) groups corresponding to increasing predicted probabilities of low birth weight (3.2%-96.3%).ConclusionUltrasound-based fetal weight estimation using the Hadlock-III formula indicated acceptable accuracy and strong correlation with actual birth weight. We developed and internally validated prediction model for low birth weight with excellent discrimination, good calibration, and predictive value beyond estimated fetal weight alone. A risk-score tool was created to facilitate rapid bedside risk stratification. However, given the single-center nature of the study and the absence of external validation, further multicenter validation is required before broader clinical implementation.
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.