TY - JOUR
T1 - Machine learning versus traditional formulas for fetal weight estimation
T2 - An international multicenter study evaluating prediction accuracy across birth weight percentiles
AU - Dor, Omer
AU - Ashwal, Eran
AU - Cohen, May
AU - Rottenstreich, Ori
AU - Yogev, Yariv
AU - Shomron, Noam
AU - Rottenstreich, Misgav
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
PY - 2025/1/1
Y1 - 2025/1/1
N2 - Objective: To assess whether machine learning (ML) offers improved birth weight prediction accuracy, since despite numerous models, the Hadlock formula remains the clinical standard. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study analyzed data from 9674 singleton pregnancies with estimated fetal weight (EFW) within 7 days of delivery. ML models—Linear Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, and Neural Networks—were trained using ultrasound and maternal features. Performance was measured by mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score for percentile categories. Results: LightGBM and XGBoost outperformed Hadlock in overall weight estimation (MAPE ~0.065; RMSE ~252; MAE ~190). For birth weight percentiles (<3rd, <10th, >90th, >97th), ML showed marginal or comparable improvement. LightGBM had higher accuracy and F1 for extreme percentiles, whereas Hadlock showed slightly better recall in some cases. Conclusion: ML models, especially LightGBM and XGBoost, enhanced overall weight prediction but offered limited gains in identifying percentile-based risk. The Hadlock formula remains a strong tool for categorizing at-risk fetuses.
AB - Objective: To assess whether machine learning (ML) offers improved birth weight prediction accuracy, since despite numerous models, the Hadlock formula remains the clinical standard. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study analyzed data from 9674 singleton pregnancies with estimated fetal weight (EFW) within 7 days of delivery. ML models—Linear Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, LightGBM, XGBoost, and Neural Networks—were trained using ultrasound and maternal features. Performance was measured by mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score for percentile categories. Results: LightGBM and XGBoost outperformed Hadlock in overall weight estimation (MAPE ~0.065; RMSE ~252; MAE ~190). For birth weight percentiles (<3rd, <10th, >90th, >97th), ML showed marginal or comparable improvement. LightGBM had higher accuracy and F1 for extreme percentiles, whereas Hadlock showed slightly better recall in some cases. Conclusion: ML models, especially LightGBM and XGBoost, enhanced overall weight prediction but offered limited gains in identifying percentile-based risk. The Hadlock formula remains a strong tool for categorizing at-risk fetuses.
KW - Hadlock formula
KW - birth weight prediction
KW - fetal weight estimation
KW - large for gestational age
KW - machine learning
KW - percentile prediction
KW - small for gestational age
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105021655746
U2 - 10.1002/ijgo.70657
DO - 10.1002/ijgo.70657
M3 - Article
C2 - 41216970
AN - SCOPUS:105021655746
SN - 0020-7292
JO - International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
JF - International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
ER -