ArticleAJOG global reports2024
Using machine learning to predict the risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy using a contemporary nulliparous cohort.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2024. 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.
- The role of artificial intelligence in hypertension management.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2026Review
- Hypertensive Pregnancy Disorders: From Mechanisms to Management.American journal of hypertension · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are significant drivers of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Current management strategies include early identification and initiation of risk mitigating interventions facilitated by a rules-based checklist. Advanced analytic techniques, such as machine learning, can potentially offer improved and refined predictive capabilities. Objective: To develop and internally validate a machine learning prediction model for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) when initiating prenatal care. Study Design: We developed a prediction model using data from the prospective multisite cohort Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b) among low-risk individuals without a prior history of aspirin utilization for preeclampsia prevention. The primary outcome was the development of HDP. Random forest modeling was utilized to develop predictive models. Recursive feature elimination (RFE) was employed to create a reduced model for each outcome. Area under the curve (AUC), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and calibration curves were utilized to assess discrimination and accuracy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the reduced model compared to existing risk factor-based algorithms. Results: Of 9,124 assessed low risk nulliparous individuals, 21% (n=1,927) developed HDP. The prediction model for HDP had satisfactory discrimination with an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.75). After RFE, a parsimonious reduced model with 30 features was created with an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.74). Variables included in the model after RFE included body mass index at the first study visit, pre-pregnancy weight, first trimester complete blood count results, and maximum systolic blood pressure at the first visit. Calibration curves for all models revealed relatively stable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities. Sensitivity analysis noted superior sensitivity (AUC 0.80 vs 0.65) and specificity (0.65 vs 0.53) of the model compared to traditional risk factor-based algorithms. Conclusion: In cohort of low-risk nulliparous pregnant individuals, a prediction model may accurately predict HDP diagnosis at the time of initiating prenatal care and aid employment of close interval monitoring and prophylactic measures earlier in pregnancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.