Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2025
An Experimental Paradigm for the Prediction of Post-Operative Pain PPOP
Published on: January 27, 2010
Interpretable machine learning predicts postpartum hemorrhage with severe maternal morbidity in a lower-risk laboring
Benjamin J Lengerich1, Rich Caruana2, Ian Painter3
1Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (Lengerich).
Background:
Early identification of patients at increased risk for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) associated with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) is critical for preparation and preventative intervention. However, prediction is challenging in patients without obvious risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage with severe maternal morbidity. Current tools for hemorrhage risk assessment use lists of risk factors rather than predictive models.
Objective:
To develop, validate (internally and externally), and compare a machine learning model for predicting PPH associated with SMM against a standard hemorrhage risk assessment tool in a lower risk laboring obstetric population.
Study Design:
This retrospective cross-sectional study included clinical data from singleton, term births (>=37 weeks' gestation) at 19 US hospitals (2016-2021) using data from 58,023 births at 11 hospitals to train a generalized additive model (GAM) and 27,743 births at 8 held-out hospitals to externally validate the model. The outcome of interest was PPH with severe maternal morbidity (blood transfusion, hysterectomy, vascular embolization, intrauterine balloon tamponade, uterine artery ligation suture, uterine compression suture, or admission to intensive care). Cesarean birth without a trial of vaginal birth and patients with a history of cesarean were excluded. We compared the model performance to that of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) Obstetric Hemorrhage Risk Factor Assessment Screen.
Results:
The GAM predicted PPH with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.67 (95% CI 0.64-0.68) on external validation, significantly outperforming the CMQCC risk screen AUROC of 0.52 (95% CI 0.50-0.53). Additionally, the GAM had better sensitivity of 36.9% (95% CI 33.01-41.02) than the CMQCC screen sensitivity of 20.30% (95% CI 17.40-22.52) at the CMQCC screen positive rate of 16.8%. The GAM identified in-vitro fertilization as a risk factor (adjusted OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-1.8) and nulliparous births as the highest PPH risk factor (adjusted OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4-1.6).
Conclusion:
Our model identified almost twice as many cases of PPH as the CMQCC rules-based approach for the same screen positive rate and identified in-vitro fertilization and first-time births as risk factors for PPH. Adopting predictive models over traditional screens can enhance PPH prediction.
