Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Preeclampsia remains a major contributor to maternal and perinatal morbidity. This study aimed to develop and internally evaluate an interpretable machine-learning framework integrating routinely available first- and second-trimester parameters for preclinical risk stratification. This retrospective case-control study included 524 singleton pregnancies (262 with preeclampsia and 262 normotensive controls). Seven prespecified predictors—12-week mean arterial pressure (MAP), pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated estriol, eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (ELR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and lymphocyte count—were evaluated using logistic regression, random forest, Gaussian naive Bayes, support vector machine, and k-nearest neighbors. Internal validation used stratified 10-fold cross-validation with identical fold assignments across classifiers. A five-variable weighted clinical risk score was also constructed. MAP showed the highest univariable discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.891). In cross-validation, Gaussian naive Bayes achieved the numerically highest mean AUC (0.948 ± 0.024), accuracy (0.885 ± 0.031), recall (0.893 ± 0.044), and F1 score (0.886 ± 0.032), while random forest had the highest mean precision (0.891 ± 0.042). The weighted clinical risk score achieved an AUC of 0.885 and 81.9% accuracy. The framework showed strong internal discrimination but remains exploratory. Because the score incorporates approximately 16-week AFP and estriol measurements, it should not be interpreted as a purely first-trimester aspirin-selection model. Prospective external validation, calibration, and subtype-specific assessment are required before clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zorlu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: