ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
First trimester prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus by machine learning in twin pregnancies.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to develop a machine learning model for first-trimester prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in twin pregnancies using a prospective international, multi-center cohort and identify useful predictive markers.
methodsPregnant women with two live fetuses were enrolled at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation and followed until delivery. GDM was diagnosed at 24-28 weeks' gestation using the two-stage GCT and OGTT tests. Biochemical, biophysical, and blood assessments were conducted at three periods during pregnancy. Multiple machine learning models evaluated demographic, clinical, and laboratory parameters, including maternal factors (BMI, age, medical history), sonographic markers (crown rump length, estimated fetal weight, uterine artery pulsatility index), and blood and biochemical markers (placental growth factors, blood glucose, cell counts). LightGBM, XGBoost, and logistic regression models were compared using area under the curve (AUC) analysis.
resultsAmong 596 women, 99 (16.6%) developed GDM. LightGBM demonstrated superior performance (AUC = 0.72, 95% CI 0.69-0.75). First-trimester high BMI was the strongest predictor, followed by elevated white blood cell counts and platelet levels. Detection rates (DR) were 28% and 42% at 10% and 20% false positive rates (FPR), respectively. Previous GDM was associated with an increased risk for GDM. DISCUSSION: GDM in twins is associated with certain characteristics of the first-trimester. Information from later trimesters has a limited impact. The GDM probability risk score increased with the severity of the treatment. An app to predict this score is available at: twin-pe.math.biu.ac.il.
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.