Interpretable Machine Learning for Predicting Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Gestational Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects over 5% of pregnancies worldwide, elevating risks of type 2 diabetes post partum and complications such as fetal death, miscarriage, and congenital abnormalities. Effective GDM management is essential to balance glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes. Objective: We aim to develop interpretable machine learning models using GDM datasets for predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes and identifying key factors through the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) algorithm, thus supporting improved maternal and infant health. Methods: Data preprocessing and feature selection were performed, with adaptive synthetic sampling used to address class imbalance. Classification models, including logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting, were built and enhanced through the stacking method. Model interpretability was assessed with SHAP to quantify feature contributions. Results: Among 1670 patients, 200 experienced adverse outcomes. The stacking model outperformed individual models, achieving an accuracy of 85.6%, a sensitivity of 57.8%, a specificity of 95.9%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 on the test set. External validation on 159 patients showed a decline in performance (accuracy 83.6%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.67). SHAP analysis identified gestational age, glucose control, and diagnosis time among the most influential predictors, providing clinically meaningful insights into risk factors. Additionally, detailed SHAP-based visualization revealed the distribution of different feature values and their nonlinear impact on outcomes, as well as interaction effects between features. These interpretable analyses enabled a deeper understanding of individual and combined feature contributions, thereby enhancing clinical assessment capabilities. Conclusions: This study underscores the potential of machine learning in predicting adverse outcomes in GDM, with interpretable features offering valuable clinical insights to enhance pregnancy management and maternal-infant health.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".