Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42597018›Full record

ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026

An externally validated machine learning model to predict cesarean surgical site infections.

Megan M Lobel, Stephen M Wagner, Enid Y Rivera-Chiauzzi, Michelle A Wyatt, Stephanie L Pierce, Lillian Dyre, Maureen S Hamel, Methodius G Tuuli, Sam R Lobel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Megan M LobelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of California, San Francisco San Francisco California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2835-9467
Stephen M WagnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2715-2755
Enid Y Rivera-ChiauzziDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6416-3923
Michelle A WyattDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine Essentia Health Fargo North Dakota USA.
Stephanie L PierceDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Oklahoma City Oklahoma USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1328-8990
Lillian DyreDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7209-7575
Maureen S HamelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine UMass Memorial Health Worcester Massachusetts USA.
Methodius G TuuliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Women & Infants Hospital Providence Rhode Island USA.
Sam R LobelDepartment of Computer Science Brown University Providence Rhode Island USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To develop a comprehensive risk stratification model to identify patients at high risk of cesarean surgical site infection (cSSI) based on information available at the time of hospital discharge. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study based on datasets from two independent level IV academic medical centers to improve generalizability. The first study includes 2336 cesarean deliveries for analysis with 109 instances of cSSI (4.7%). The second study includes 2936 cesarean deliveries with 72 instances of cSSI (2.5%). The first study cohort was utilized for both model training and internal validation, using the 15 shared features present in both datasets. Random search with cross-validation was used to choose the type of machine learning (ML) model and its hyperparameters, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as the validation metric. The second study cohort was then used to evaluate testing accuracy (external validation) and generalization capability of this model. The predictive importance of each feature was evaluated using permutation importance applied to the second cohort. Risk stratification cutoff scores were defined based on centiles over the first patient cohort and evaluated on the second cohort. Results: The ML model with the highest validation AUC was an XGBoost classifier. This trained model achieved an AUC of 0.78 on the training data and a 0.72 cross-validated AUC. When tested on data from the second study cohort, it achieved an AUC of 0.69. The features showing the strongest predictive generalization, as measured by permutation importance, were length of hospital stay, primary indication for cesarean delivery, and estimated blood loss. Using the second cohort to test our model, the model shows a 22.7% positive predictive value (PPV) of cSSI among women in the highest risk group, and a 0.8% PPV among women in the bottom risk group, compared with 2.5% cSSI incidence for the study population at large. Conclusion: We developed and validated a predictive ML model for cSSI with information available to healthcare professionals at the time of hospital discharge. This model suggests that the most predictive risk factors for cSSI include length of hospital stay, primary indication for cesarean delivery, and estimated blood loss. Additionally, the model provides reasonable risk stratifications for individual patients. This tool may be used for identifying subgroups at higher risk of cSSI and identifying those who may require closer surveillance or clinical intervention.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecesarean sectionmachine learningpredictive modelsurgical site infections

Identifiers

PMID42597018
PMCPMC13344827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.