Machine Learning-Based Maternal Health Risk Assessment: A Comparative Analysis of Classification Algorithms for Predicting Risk Levels During Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Maternal health risk assessment remains a critical challenge in healthcare, particularly in resource-limited settings where early identification of high-risk pregnancies can significantly impact maternal and fetal outcomes. This study evaluates the performance of multiple machine learning algorithms for predicting maternal health risk levels using physiological parameters. Methods: We analyzed a dataset of 1014 pregnant women from Kaggle, incorporating six key features: age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood sugar levels, body temperature, and heart rate. Risk levels were classified as mild (0), moderate (1), and severe (2). Four machine learning algorithms were implemented and compared: Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN). Results: Random Forest and SVM achieved perfect classification performance with 100% accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-scores across all risk categories. Logistic Regression demonstrated strong performance with 98% overall accuracy, showing minor challenges in recall for moderate risk cases (93%). KNN achieved 98% accuracy with balanced performance across risk categories, though slightly lower precision for mild risk cases (95%). Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest and SVM, show promise in predicting maternal health risks; however, further validation across diverse populations is essential before clinical adoption.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".