ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
External validation of a machine learning model to predict postpartum hemorrhage in a US northeastern healthcare system.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and predictive analytics in obstetric anesthesia: early warning for maternal complications.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for postpartum hemorrhage: a systematic review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Introduction: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Timely prediction may prevent adverse maternal outcomes, and efforts are needed to develop accurate predictive tools. A high-performing machine learning model to predict PPH using data from the US Consortium for Safe Labor (CSL) remains to be widely validated in contemporary clinical settings using electronic health record (EHR) data. Our goal was to evaluate the performance of the CSL PPH predictive model using EHR data across a large healthcare system in the Northeastern United States. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study across eight hospitals in the Northeastern United States between May 2015 and May 2024. We used the same sociodemographic, clinical diagnoses, family history, laboratory, and vital signs available on labor and delivery admission in the EHR that were used to train the original CSL model. The binary outcome was PPH, defined as estimated blood loss of 1000 mL or more at delivery or blood transfusion within 24 h postpartum. We then refit a new model using the original features to assess whether model performance could be further improved in our study population using the best-performing machine learning approach (extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost]) from the original CSL model. We evaluated model discrimination as measured using the area under the curve (AUC), feature importance, calibration, and decision analysis curves of both the original CSL model with external validation and the further refit model. Results: Among 87,662 deliveries, the incidence of PPH was 7.7%. The original CSL model demonstrated modest discrimination for predicting PPH with an AUC of 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.61). Refitting a new model with XGBoost resulted in improved discrimination with an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.76). Calibration analyses demonstrated that the refit model overestimated PPH risk across a range of predicted probabilities. Conclusion: A previously developed PPH predictive model had substantially reduced performance with external validation using contemporary EHR data across an eight-hospital health system in the Northeastern United States, underscoring limited generalizability. These findings highlight the importance of external validation, local adaptation, and ongoing surveillance for assessing model performance before implementing predictive models clinically.
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.