Machine Learning Models for Predicting Risky Pregnancies in Early Clinical Interventions

Atik Shahariyar Hasan ¹, Sree Shib Shankar Devnath Debu ², Israt Jahan Eti ³, Md. Halimuzzaman ⁴, Mohammad Rezaul Karim ⁵, Birupaksha Biswas ⁶

This study determined the most effective machine learning models for predicting risky pregnancies, aiding in early clinical interventions.

Abstract

Background: Risky pregnancies present significant challenges in maternal healthcare, often requiring accurate prediction to prevent adverse outcomes. Machine learning (ML) models offer a promising approach for predicting such risks, enabling timely interventions. This study evaluates five machine learning models—Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Naive Bayes, and Support Vector Machine (SVM)—for their effectiveness in predicting risky pregnancies using clinical datasets. Methods: The study developed and evaluated five ML models, each implemented using Python’s scikit-learn library. The dataset was split into 75% for training and 25% for testing. Standard classification metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, were used to assess model performance. Hyperparameter tuning was conducted using grid search and cross-validation to optimize model parameters. The models’ performance was compared to identify the most suitable for clinical applications. Results: The Decision Tree model achieved the highest accuracy (100% on training data, 95.6% on testing data), along with excellent precision, recall, and F1-scores for both classes, making it the most accurate and interpretable model for predicting risky pregnancies. Logistic Regression also performed well, particularly in identifying high-risk cases, with testing accuracy of 82%. KNN and SVM provided moderate accuracy, with KNN achieving 78% testing accuracy and SVM 80%. Naive Bayes, however, performed poorly, achieving only 43.2% accuracy due to its assumption of feature independence, which was not suitable for the dataset. Conclusion: The Decision Tree and Logistic Regression models emerged as the most effective for predicting risky pregnancies, offering high accuracy and interpretability, crucial for clinical decision-making.

Keywords: Risky pregnancies, machine learning, Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, predictive modeling

References

Altman, D. G. (1992). Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall.

Barker, D. J. P. (2007). The origins of the developmental origins theory. Journal of Internal Medicine, 261(5), 412-417.

Black, R. E., Victora, C. G., Walker, S. P., Bhutta, Z. A., Christian, P., de Onis, M., ... & Uauy, R. (2013). Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 382(9890), 427-451.

Bodnar, L. M., & Wisner, K. L. (2015). Nutrition and depression: implications for improving mental health among childbearing-aged women. Biological Psychiatry, 77(9), 685-687.

Chowdhury, R., Doi, S. A. R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Lam, W. Y., & Sharma, M. (2016). Systematic review with meta-analysis: impact of preoperative nutritional supplementation on postoperative outcomes in gastrointestinal surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 1-13.

Darnton-Hill, I., Nishida, C., & James, W. P. T. (2019). A life course approach to diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Public Health Nutrition, 7(1A), 101-121.

Duarte, D. P., Maciel, L. G., & de Souza, R. J. (2019). Machine learning and nutritional status: The state of the art. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 104, 202-210.

Halimuzzaman, Md., Sharma, Dr. J., Bhattacharjee, T., Mallik, B., Rahman, R., Rezaul Karim, M., Masrur Ikram, M., & Fokhrul Islam, M. (2024). Blockchain Technology for Integrating Electronic Records of Digital Healthcare System. Journal of Angiotherapy, 8(7). http://publishing.emanresearch.org/Journal/Abstarct/angiotherapy.879740

Hsieh, P. C., Wu, C. Z., & Chen, Y. C. (2018). Utilization of wearable devices for maternal and fetal health care: a systematic review. Nursing Research, 67(5), 401-408.

Khalilia, M., Chakraborty, S., & Popescu, M. (2011). Predicting disease risks from highly imbalanced data using random forest. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 11(1), 51.

Lassi, Z. S., Moin, A., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2013). Nutrition in pregnancy: developing country perspectives. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 18(6), 378-384.

Liu, Y., Chen, P. H. C., & Krause, J. (2020). How to read articles that use machine learning: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA, 322(18), 1800-1809.

Obermeyer, Z., & Emanuel, E. J. (2016). Predicting the future—big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 375(13), 1216-1219.

Rajkomar, A., Dean, J., & Kohane, I. (2019). Machine learning in medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 380(14), 1347-1358.

Subar, A. F., Freedman, L. S., Tooze, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. I., Boushey, C., Neuhouser, M. L., ... & Kipnis, V. (2015). Addressing current criticism regarding the value of self-report dietary data. Journal of Nutrition, 145(12), 2639-2645.

Thompson, W. R., Gordon, N. F., & Pescatello, L. S. (2019). ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Vellido, A., Martín-Guerrero, J. D., & Lisboa, P. J. G. (2012). Making machine learning models interpretable. Proceedings of the European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning, 21, 163-172.

Zhang, Z., Chen, X., Zhu, Q., Li, L., Zhao, H., & Jin, B. (2020). Predicting pregnancy complications with machine learning models based on maternal health monitoring data. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 252, 165-170.