Artificial Intelligence for Early Detection of Preeclampsia and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of

Sahar Altayeb Alfaki Ahmed1, Mohammedelfateh Adam2, Hanady Me M Osman3

  • 1Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Khaled Majmaah Hospital, Riyadh, SAU.

Cureus
|October 22, 2025
PubMed

Insights

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) show promise for early detection of preeclampsia (PE) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). AI models achieved high accuracy, outperforming traditional methods, but require further validation for clinical use.

Area of Science:

  • Maternal-fetal medicine
  • Medical artificial intelligence
  • Biomedical informatics

Background:

  • Preeclampsia (PE) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) significantly contribute to maternal and neonatal complications.
  • Current screening methods for PE and GDM exhibit limitations in sensitivity and predictive accuracy.
  • Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) present novel opportunities for improved early detection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically review and synthesize evidence on AI/ML models for the early prediction and diagnosis of PE and GDM.
  • To assess the diagnostic performance and risk of bias of AI/ML models in pregnant populations.
  • To identify barriers and future research directions for clinical translation of AI/ML tools.

Main Methods:

  • A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted across five major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library) from January 2020 to July 2025.
  • Studies involving AI/ML model development and validation for PE/GDM prediction in pregnant women were included.
  • Data extraction focused on study characteristics, AI model types, performance metrics (e.g., AUC), and risk of bias assessment using PROBAST.

Main Results:

  • Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, indicating a nascent research landscape.
  • AI models, including neural networks, XGBoost, and Random Forest, demonstrated strong performance, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values frequently exceeding 0.85.
  • Specific models achieved high AUCs (e.g., 0.920 for early PE, 0.946 for GDM) and sensitivities (e.g., up to 84% for PE, 75-85% for GDM), often outperforming logistic regression.
  • Seven studies were assessed as low risk of bias, while two had high risk, particularly concerning participant selection and analysis.

Conclusions:

  • AI and ML models hold substantial potential for the early detection of PE and GDM, offering improved diagnostic accuracy.
  • While promising, heterogeneity in studies and limited external validation necessitate cautious interpretation.
  • Future research must prioritize multicenter, prospective validation, standardized reporting, and considerations of equity and generalizability for safe clinical integration.