Prediction of successful labor induction in persons with a low Bishop score using machine learning: Secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this paper was to identify predictors of a vaginal birth in individuals with singleton pregnancies and a Bishop Score <4, following Induction of Labor (IoL) using dinoprostone vaginal insert (DVI). Secondarily, we sought to understand the association between oxytocin use for labor augmentation and IoL outcomes. METHODS: We developed and internally validated a multivariate prediction model using machine learning (ML) applied to data from two Phase-III randomized controlled double-blind trials (NCT01127581, NCT00308711). The model was internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: This study included 1107 participants. Despite unfavorable cervical status and inclusion of high-risk pregnancies, 72% of participants had vaginal births. The model's area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73. The following factors increased the chance of vaginal birth: being parous; being between 37 and 41 weeks of gestation; having a lower Body Mass Index; having a lower maternal age; having fewer maternal comorbidities; and having a higher Bishop score. Parity alone correctly predicted the outcome in ~50% of cases, at a ~10% false-negative rate. Participants whose labors progressed without requiring oxytocin had a higher probability of vaginal birth than those requiring oxytocin for either induction or augmentation (81% vs 70% vs 77%, respectively). DISCUSSION: Even in high-risk pregnancies and with low Bishop scores, the use of DVI results in a high chance of vaginal birth. Parity is a critical predictor of success. The judicious use of oxytocin for labor induction or augmentation can increase the chance of vaginal birth. Our study validates the use of ML and predictive modeling for treatment response prediction when considering IoL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".