ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and validation of a postpartum hemorrhage risk prediction model for advanced maternal age women undergoing vaginal delivery: a comparison of multiple machine learning algorithms.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality in women of advanced maternal age (AMA). Accurate antenatal prediction remains challenging. This study aimed to develop and compare the performance of multiple machine learning (ML) algorithms for predicting PPH risk following vaginal delivery in AMA parturients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 5,369 women who delivered vaginally at Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. LASSO regression was used to identify key predictors. Seven machine learning algorithms-logistic regression (LR), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), XGBoost, LightGBM, support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN)-were employed to build prediction models. Model performance was evaluated on an independent validation set using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score. The optimal model was selected based on a composite criterion prioritizing the highest sensitivity and best F1 score, while requiring a competitive AUC. Results: Eight predictors were selected for model construction. Among the seven models, the SVM model achieved the highest sensitivity (0.482) and the highest F1 score (0.504), and was therefore selected as the clinically preferred model, while maintaining a competitive AUC of 0.782 (95% Conclusion: Among seven machine learning models, the SVM model was selected as the clinically preferred predictor due to its highest sensitivity and F1-score. Its good discriminative ability and balanced performance make it suitable for clinical application as a screening tool. The integration of SHAP analysis can further enhance model interpretability and facilitate individualized risk assessment.
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.