MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406325415 · doi:10.2196/59377

Fetal Birth Weight Prediction in the Third Trimester: Retrospective Cohort Study and Development of an Ensemble Model

2025· article· en· W4406325415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing Gao, Jie Xu, Yujun Yao, Jingdong Xue, Ruiyao Chen, Jiayuan Chen, Weiwei Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintObstetricsFetusThird trimesterMedicinePregnancyComputer scienceBiologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Accurate third-trimester birth weight prediction is vital for reducing adverse outcomes, and machine learning (ML) offers superior precision over traditional ultrasound methods. Objective: This study aims to develop an ML model on the basis of clinical big data for accurate prediction of birth weight in the third trimester of pregnancy, which can help reduce adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Methods: From January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, a retrospective cohort study involving 16,655 singleton live births without congenital anomalies (>28 weeks of gestation) was conducted in a tertiary first-class hospital in Shanghai. The initial set of data was divided into a train set for algorithm development and a test set on which the algorithm was divided in a ratio of 4:1. We extracted maternal and neonatal delivery outcomes, as well as parental demographics, obstetric clinical data, and sonographic fetal biometry, from electronic medical records. A total of 5 basic ML algorithms, including Ridge, SVM, Random Forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and Multi-Layer Perceptron, were used to develop the prediction model, which was then averaged into an ensemble learning model. The models were compared using accuracy, mean squared error, root mean squared error, and mean absolute error. International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital's Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the usage of patient information (GKLW2021-20). Results: Train and test sets contained a total of 13,324 and 3331 cases, respectively. From a total of 59 variables, we selected 17 variables that were readily available for the "few feature model," which achieved high predictive power with an accuracy of 81% and significantly exceeded ultrasound formula methods. In addition, our model maintained superior performance for low birth weight and macrosomic fetal populations. Conclusions: Our research investigated an innovative artificial intelligence model for predicting fetal birth weight and maximizing health care resource use. In the era of big data, our model improves maternal and fetal outcomes and promotes precision medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207