ReviewInternational journal of women's health2026
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for predicting Major Obstetric Emergencies: Current Evidence, Clinical Translation, and Future Directions.
Review in International journal of women's health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Obstetric emergencies, including postpartum hemorrhage, preeclampsia, and preterm birth, remain major contributors to preventable maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Conventional risk assessment approaches often rely on predefined clinical variables and may insufficiently capture complex nonlinear relationships among maternal characteristics, biomarkers, imaging findings, and electronic health record data. Purpose: This narrative review aimed to synthesize current evidence on the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning for prediction and risk stratification in major obstetric emergencies. Methods: A structured narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize original studies evaluating AI- and ML-based models for postpartum hemorrhage, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. Evidence was reviewed according to target condition, algorithm type, predictor variables, model performance, validation strategy, interpretability, and clinical implementation relevance. Results: Machine-learning models, including random forest, support vector machine, neural networks, gradient boosting, LightGBM, and XGBoost, demonstrated promising discriminatory performance across selected cohorts. These models commonly incorporated maternal demographics, obstetric history, biomarkers, ultrasound parameters, and electronic health record variables. However, substantial heterogeneity in study design, predictors, outcome definitions, and performance reporting limited direct comparison. External validation, calibration assessment, explainability, and prospective evaluation were frequently insufficient. Conclusion: AI and ML may enhance early risk identification in obstetric emergencies, but current evidence remains insufficient for routine clinical implementation. Future studies should prioritize transparent reporting, multicenter validation, calibration, explainable modeling, and prospective assessment of clinical utility.
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.