ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting incident gestational hypothyroidism using clinical laboratory markers.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Traditional risk factors have limited performance for early identification of gestational hypothyroidism (GHT), and evidence remains limited on prediction using clinical laboratory markers. Methods: This single-center retrospective observational study included 407 pregnant women without GHT at baseline, including 164 with incident GHT and 243 without GHT during follow-up. Candidate predictors were extracted from electronic medical records and laboratory information systems. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression, the Boruta algorithm, and Random Forest variable-importance ranking were used for feature selection. Twelve ML models were developed and compared. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), classification metrics, calibration curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), clinical impact curves, and residual analysis. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) was used for interpretation. Results: Nine predictors were retained: zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), calcium (Ca), vitamin D (vitD), vitamin E (vitE), albumin (ALB), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP). In the validation set, Lasso had the highest AUC [0.918; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.871-0.964]. Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) had a similar AUC (0.916; 95% CI, 0.866-0.965) and achieved the highest accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, F1 score, and Youden's J statistic. LightGBM also showed acceptable calibration performance in the internal validation set, clinical net benefit, and residual distribution; therefore, it was selected as the final model. SHAP identified Zn, ALP, ALB, Cu, vitE, ALT, Fe, Ca, and vitD as the leading contributors. Conclusion: A LightGBM model based on clinical laboratory markers showed balanced performance for predicting incident GHT. External prospective validation is required before clinical implementation.
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.