Machine Learning for Predicting Stillbirth: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Reproductive Sciences Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1007/s43032-024-01655-z
Qingyuan Li, Pan Li, Junyu Chen, Ruyu Ren, Ni Ren, Yinyin Xia
{"title":"Machine Learning for Predicting Stillbirth: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Qingyuan Li, Pan Li, Junyu Chen, Ruyu Ren, Ni Ren, Yinyin Xia","doi":"10.1007/s43032-024-01655-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stillbirth is a major global issue, with over 5 million cases each year. The multifactorial nature of stillbirth makes it difficult to predict. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have the potential to enhance clinical decision-making and enable precise assessments. This study reviewed the literature on predictive ML models for stillbirth highlighting input characteristics, performance metrics, and validation. The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies using AI to develop predictive models for stillbirth. Findings were analyzed qualitatively using narrative synthesis and graphics. Risk of bias and the applicability of the studies were assessed using PROBAST. Model design and performance were discussed. Eight studies involving 14,840,654 women with gestational ages ranging from 20 weeks to full term were included in the qualitative analysis. Most studies used neural networks, random forests, and logistic regression algorithms. The number of predictive features varied from 14 to 53. Only 50% of studies validated the models. Cross-validation was commonly employed, and only 25% of studies performed external validation. All studies reported area under the curve as a performance metric (range 0.54-0.9), and five studies reported sensitivity (range, 60- 90%) and specificity (range, 64 - 93.3%). A stacked ensemble model that analyzed 53 features performed better than other models (AUC = 0.9; sensitivity and specificity > 85%). Available ML models can attain a considerable degree of accuracy for prediction of stillbirth; however, these models require further development before they can be applied in a clinical setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":20920,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1388-1398"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01655-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stillbirth is a major global issue, with over 5 million cases each year. The multifactorial nature of stillbirth makes it difficult to predict. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have the potential to enhance clinical decision-making and enable precise assessments. This study reviewed the literature on predictive ML models for stillbirth highlighting input characteristics, performance metrics, and validation. The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies using AI to develop predictive models for stillbirth. Findings were analyzed qualitatively using narrative synthesis and graphics. Risk of bias and the applicability of the studies were assessed using PROBAST. Model design and performance were discussed. Eight studies involving 14,840,654 women with gestational ages ranging from 20 weeks to full term were included in the qualitative analysis. Most studies used neural networks, random forests, and logistic regression algorithms. The number of predictive features varied from 14 to 53. Only 50% of studies validated the models. Cross-validation was commonly employed, and only 25% of studies performed external validation. All studies reported area under the curve as a performance metric (range 0.54-0.9), and five studies reported sensitivity (range, 60- 90%) and specificity (range, 64 - 93.3%). A stacked ensemble model that analyzed 53 features performed better than other models (AUC = 0.9; sensitivity and specificity > 85%). Available ML models can attain a considerable degree of accuracy for prediction of stillbirth; however, these models require further development before they can be applied in a clinical setting.

Abstract Image

预测死产的机器学习:系统回顾
死胎是一个重大的全球性问题,每年有 500 多万例。死产的多因素性质使其难以预测。人工智能(AI)和机器学习(ML)具有增强临床决策和实现精确评估的潜力。本研究回顾了有关死胎预测性 ML 模型的文献,重点介绍了输入特征、性能指标和验证。在 PubMed、Cochrane 和 Web of Science 数据库中搜索了使用人工智能开发死胎预测模型的研究。研究结果采用叙事综合法和图表进行定性分析。使用 PROBAST 对研究的偏倚风险和适用性进行了评估。对模型的设计和性能进行了讨论。定性分析共纳入了八项研究,涉及 14,840,654 名孕龄从 20 周到足月的妇女。大多数研究使用了神经网络、随机森林和逻辑回归算法。预测特征的数量从 14 个到 53 个不等。只有 50% 的研究对模型进行了验证。通常采用交叉验证,只有 25% 的研究进行了外部验证。所有研究都报告了曲线下面积作为性能指标(范围为 0.54-0.9),五项研究报告了灵敏度(范围为 60-90%)和特异度(范围为 64 - 93.3%)。分析 53 个特征的叠加集合模型比其他模型表现更好(AUC = 0.9;灵敏度和特异性 > 85%)。现有的 ML 模型在预测死胎方面可以达到相当高的准确度;但是,这些模型在应用于临床之前还需要进一步的开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reproductive Sciences
Reproductive Sciences 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.40%
发文量
322
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Reproductive Sciences (RS) is a peer-reviewed, monthly journal publishing original research and reviews in obstetrics and gynecology. RS is multi-disciplinary and includes research in basic reproductive biology and medicine, maternal-fetal medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, urogynecology, fertility/infertility, embryology, gynecologic/reproductive oncology, developmental biology, stem cell research, molecular/cellular biology and other related fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信