ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Predicting of early miscarriage based on machine learning: a retrospective cohort study in China.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly miscarriage (EM) remains a significant reproductive health challenge, with current serum hormone biomarkers (β-hCG, progesterone, estradiol) showing inconsistent predictive value across studies. To address these limitations, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly applied to integrate complex biomarker data and improve the early prediction of EM.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 17,926 singleton pregnancies (1,918 EM vs. 16,008 live births) from Chongqing (2017-2023), China, to establish optimal hormonal predictors and timing for EM risk assessment. Serum hormone concentrations were longitudinally analyzed across distinct gestational weeks to characterize temporal variations. To assess the predictive efficacy of individual biomarkers and composite models, we conducted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. The optimal predictive biomarker and the earliest gestational time point for EM detection were determined through comparative evaluation of area under the ROC curve (AUC) values derived from univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Finally, a systematic machine learning approach employing ten distinct algorithms was implemented to screen and validate the most robust prediction model.
resultsLongitudinal analysis revealed distinct gestational patterns: β-hCG and estradiol showed weekly increases through 9 weeks before stabilizing, while progesterone demonstrated a biphasic pattern (decline until 7 weeks, subsequent rise). EM cases exhibited significantly lower hormone levels across all gestational weeks. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to assess the predictive performance of both univariate and multivariate models, which revealed a progressive increase in accuracy with advancing gestational age (AUC range: 0.67-0.99). Notably, week 4 progesterone alone showed predictive capacity (AUC = 0.67, cut-off = 17.75 pg/ml). Machine learning evaluation of 10 algorithms identified an artificial neural network (ANN) incorporating β-hCG, progesterone, estradiol, and maternal age as optimal, achieving superior prediction accuracy at week 4 (training AUC = 0.82; validation AUC = 0.81). This multivariate model enables EM risk stratification earlier than conventional hormonal assessments.
conclusionsOur findings resolve key controversies regarding predictive thresholds and timing while demonstrating the clinical potential of machine learning integration for early pregnancy risk assessment. The established week 4 prediction window offers critical opportunities for timely intervention and patient counseling.
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.