ArticleHealthcare technology letters
A Model of the First Trimester Evaluation of Foetal Movements and Their Outcomes via Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Multicentric Study.
Article in Healthcare technology letters. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Foetal outcomes with reduced foetal movements in the later pregnancy are widely reported. We intend to quantify early foetal movements (FMs) through a checklist and their foetal outcomes via explainable artificial intelligence. It is a prospective observational study of 356 foetuses in the first trimester, and we were able to screen only 230 foetuses for early foetal growth restriction (FGR). Of which 26 were FGR and 204 were normal and were identified from the dataset using non-probability convenience sampling techniques. JASP 0.18.3, Jamovi 2.3.21, and Google Collaboratory were used to construct the predictive model. Ultrasound scores of more than 8 had favourable indicators of a normal foetus. CatBoost had the highest accuracy and recall of 87; the highest precision of 79 was given by random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), K-nearest neighbour (KNN), and CatBoost; and the F1 score of 83 was given by CatBoost. The lowest Hamming loss of 0.13 was obtained via CatBoost. The highest Jaccard score of 0.87 was by CatBoost. The stacked model has an accuracy of 89, a precision of 79, and a recall of 83. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME), QLattice, and Anchor also provided good explanations. The created model can serve as a warning tool to obstetricians to make timely medical decisions.
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.