ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Explainable machine learning model for predicting cesarean section following induction of labor: Development and external validation using real-world data.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. 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.
- Predicting Cesarean Section Delivery in the United States Using Machine Learning: Population-Based Retrospective Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- A large-scale prediction model to predict large for gestational age infants conceived by IVF/ICSI.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Induction of labor (IOL) is a common yet complex clinical procedure associated with varying risks, including cesarean section (CS). Accurate prediction models may help support more informed, personalized decision-making. This study aimed to develop and validate an explainable machine learning prediction model for CS following IOL. We used population-based administrative perinatal datasets from two Australian states (New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland) covering all births between 2016 and 2019 for model development. Temporal validation was conducted using 2020 births from NSW, and geographical validation using 2016-2018 births from Victoria. We included women with singleton, cephalic, term, live births who attempted IOL and had no prior CS. Seven models (logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, LightGBM, XGBoost, CatBoost, and AdaBoost) were developed with hyperparameter tuning and feature selection. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve, calibration plot (overall and across sociodemographic subgroups), decision curve analysis, Brier Score, and model parsimony. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values were used to explain predictor contributions. A total of 180,700 women were included in model development (mean age 31 ± 5 years; CS = 20.8%). The optimal model, developed using XGBoost with ten predictors, achieved AUROCs of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.75-0.77) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.74-0.76) in temporal (n = 14,527; CS = 22.5%) and geographical (n = 14,755; CS = 19.0%) validations, respectively. The most influential predictors were nulliparity, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and maternal age, while diabetes and hypertension (pre-existing or pregnancy-related) contributed least. Women with higher predicted CS probabilities had increased inpatient costs and maternal morbidity, regardless of actual mode of birth. The final model is accessible via an interactive web application (https://csai-8ccf2690242c.herokuapp.com/). This model demonstrates strong predictive performance using routinely collected maternal factors. Further co-design and implementation research is needed before potential clinical adoption.
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.