ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Machine learning to predict adverse perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning (ML) provides a promising approach to predict adverse perinatal outcomes, supporting early intervention to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality. There has been a surge of publications using ML algorithms applied to routine clinical data to predict adverse perinatal outcomes. We aimed to assess the current evidence regarding ML model performance, their comparison with logistic regression, and risk of bias. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Web of Science and IEEE Xplore for studies published from 1 Findings: We retrieved 38,322 studies, and 90 studies were included. Overall ML model performance was moderate, with a median average AUC based on internal validation of 0.73 (range 0.50-0.93) for PTB, 0.68 (0.62-0.85) for SGA, and 0.75 (0.57-0.98) for stillbirth. The best-performing ML models showed no significant difference in AUC compared with the best logistic regression models for predicting PTB (p = 0.07) or SGA (p = 0.31), but a higher AUC for stillbirth prediction (p = 0.03). No specific or universally strong predictors were identified across models. Almost all studies were at high risk of bias, and potential publication bias was observed. Interpretation: ML prediction models showed moderate performance, were at high risk of bias and did not always outperform traditional statistical methods. To improve perinatal outcome prediction, methodological improvements and better predictors are needed. Funding: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, National Institute for Health and Care Research Senior Investigator Award.
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.