MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413989920 · doi:10.2196/82424

Evaluating Postpartum Hemorrhage Transfusion Risk With a Machine Learning Model for Informed Consent: Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4413989920 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey A. Nielson, Albert Bonnema

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintRetrospective cohort studyInformed consentMedicineCohort studyObstetricsComputer scienceSurgeryAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Postpartum hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion is a concern for patients and clinicians; its risk and the mode of delivery are important points of discussion before labor. Many high-risk factors associated with postpartum hemorrhage are known prior to delivery and are often unpreventable. Delivery plans are influenced by the patient’s medical history, their preferences, and clinical decision-making. Informed consent regarding known risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage will help guide delivery care plans and mitigate risk. Machine learning models have been used to predict postpartum hemorrhage; however, translation into clinical support tools is challenging. Shared decision-making discussions can be facilitated with machine learning model–based clinical support tools predicting postpartum hemorrhage requiring a transfusion. OBJECTIVE We sought to develop a machine learning model for prediction of postpartum hemorrhage requiring a transfusion. Specifically, we sought to evaluate the model’s accuracy in predicting a patient’s postpartum transfusion risk based on delivery mode, whether labor was induced, and the delivery indications for the purpose of antenatal clinical decision support. Model performance was evaluated on existing structured data and physician-reviewed datasets. METHODS A 10-year retrospective cohort of 62,521 births in a community health system was sampled. A convenience sample of 1734 patients was analyzed to predict blood transfusion rate based on delivery mode and delivery indications. XGBoost, random forest, and generalized linear models were trained and compared for performance. Datasets were evaluated using the best-performing XGBoost machine learning model. A prototype clinical support app for physician-patient transfusion risk assessment was developed using the best-performing clinically relevant XGBoost model. RESULTS A generalized linear model, random forest model, and XGBoost model were evaluated. The XGBoost model was trained with an existing dataset extracted from electronic medical records (n=1734). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.71, precision-recall receiver operating characteristic curve (PR-ROC) was 0.82, and F1 score was 0.80. Performance on a physician-reviewed dataset (n=1734) was as follows: AUC=0.705, PR-ROC=0.78, and F1 score=0.809. Feature importance ranking and prediction were not clinically accurate for the pre-review dataset. CONCLUSIONS Machine learning models are useful to determine an individual’s postpartum transfusion risk based on clinically variable and potentially modifiable factors, such as delivery mode, whether labor is induced, and delivery indications. In this study, the XGBoost model had a slightly higher AUC on structured data extracted from electronic medical records than the same dataset after physician review (AUC=0.71 and PR-ROC=0.82 vs AUC=0.705 and PR-ROC=0.78), but a slightly lower F1 score (F1=0.80 vs F1=0.809). XGBoost machine learning models trained on clinician-reviewed data can be used to predict postpartum transfusion. Clinically relevant, physician-labeled datasets are important for supervised machine learning model training for use in clinical decision support tools. Further study and external validation are needed prior to clinical use.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.383 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMaternal and fetal healthcare→French-language works237,207→