Brand Stories
Global AI advisor shares what the government ‘can and should’ do with artificial intelligence – Fox Business
Brand Stories
Prediction of birthweight with early and mid-pregnancy antenatal markers utilising machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence
Lees, C. C. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: diagnosis and management of small-for-gestational-age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 56, 298–312 (2020).
Martin. Health—United Nations Sustainable Development. United Nations Sustainable Development https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/#tab-3f22056b0e91266e8b2 (2023).
Krasevec, J. et al. Study protocol for UNICEF and WHO estimates of global, regional, and national low birthweight prevalence for 2000 to 2020. Gates Open Res. 6, 80 (2022).
Blencowe, H. et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of low birthweight in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 7, e849–e860 (2019).
Jia, C. H. et al. Short term outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants from a multicenter cohort study in Guangdong of China. Sci. Rep. 12, 11119 (2022).
Low birth weight. https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/low-birth-weight.
Okwaraji, Y. B. et al. National, regional, and global estimates of low birthweight in 2020, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet 403, 1071–1080 (2024).
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International. 2007. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06: India: Volume I. Mumbai: IIPS.
Singh, D. et al. Prevalence and correlates of low birth weight in India: findings from National Family Health Survey 5. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 1–10 (2023).
Sabbaghchi, M., Jalali, R. & Mohammadi, M. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of low birth weight infants in Iran. J. Pregnancy 2020, 1–7 (2020).
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Improving Birth Outcomes. In Improving Birth Outcomes: Meeting the Challenge in the Developing World (eds. Bale, J. R., Stoll, B. J., Lucas, A. O.) (National Academies Press, 2003). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222095/.
Derakhshi, B., Esmailnasab, N., Ghaderi, E. & Hemmatpour, S. Risk factor of preterm labor in the west of Iran: a case-control study. DOAJ 43, 499–506 (2014).
Moradi, G., Zokaeii, M., Goodarzi, E. & Khazaei, Z. Maternal risk factors for low birth weight infants: a nested case-control study of rural areas in Kurdistan (western of Iran). J. Prev. Med. Hyg. (2021).
Katz, J. et al. Mortality risk in preterm and small-for-gestational-age infants in low-income and middle-income countries: a pooled country analysis. Lancet 382, 417–425 (2013).
Knop, M. R. et al. Birth weight and risk of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension in adults: a meta-analysis of 7,646,267 participants from 135 studies. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7, e008870 (2018).
Wu, M. et al. Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasonic examination. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 8, 540–545 (2015).
Dwivedi, Y. K. et al. Artificial intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 57, 101994 (2021).
Alanazi, A. Using machine learning for healthcare challenges and opportunities. Inform. Med. Unlocked 30, 100924 (2022).
Reddy, S. Explainability and artificial intelligence in medicine. Lancet Digit. Health 4, e214–e215 (2022).
Reza, T. B. & Salma, N. Prediction and feature selection of low birth weight using machine learning algorithms. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 43, 1–10 (2024).
Ranjbar, A. et al. Machine learning-based approach for predicting low birth weight. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 1–9 (2023).
de Morais, F. L. et al. Utilization of tree-based machine learning models for predicting low birth weight cases. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 25, 207 (2025).
Naimi, A. I., Platt, R. W. & Larkin, J. C. Machine learning for fetal growth prediction. Epidemiology 29, 290 (2018).
Tao, J., Yuan, Z., Sun, L., Yu, K. & Zhang, Z. Fetal birthweight prediction with measured data by a temporal machine learning method. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 21, 1–10 (2021).
Rubaiya, N., Mansur, M., Alam, M. M. & Rayhan, M. I. Unraveling birth weight determinants: integrating machine learning, spatial analysis, and district-level mapping. Heliyon 10, e27341 (2024).
Sadeghi, Z. et al. A review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare. Comput. Electr. Eng. 118, 109370 (2024).
Gill, S. V., May-Benson, T. A., Teasdale, A. & Munsell, E. G. Birth and developmental correlates of birth weight in a sample of children with potential sensory processing disorder. BMC Pediatr. 13, 1–9 (2013).
Tarín, J. J., García-Pérez, M. A. & Cano, A. Potential risks to offspring of intrauterine exposure to maternal age-related obstetric complications. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 29, 1468–1475 (2016).
Wang, S. et al. Changing trends of birth weight with maternal age: a cross-sectional study in Xi’an city of Northwestern China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 20, 1–7 (2020).
Softa, S. M. et al. The association of maternal height with mode of delivery and fetal birth weight at King Abdulaziz University Hosc, Jeddah,. Saudi Arabia. Cureus 14, e27493 (2022).
Rochow, N. et al. Maternal body height is a stronger predictor of birth weight than ethnicity: analysis of birth weight percentile charts. J. Perinat. Med. 47, 22–29 (2018).
Spada, E., Chiossi, G., Coscia, A., Monari, F. & Facchinetti, F. Effect of maternal age, height, BMI and ethnicity on birth weight: an Italian multicenter study. J. Perinat. Med. 46, 1016–1021 (2017).
Ludwig, D. S. & Currie, J. The association between pregnancy weight gain and birthweight: a within-family comparison. Lancet 376, 984–990 (2010).
Hussey, M. R. et al. Associations of placental lncRNA expression with maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and infant birthweight in two birth cohorts. J. Dev. Orig. Health Dis. 16, 1–10 (2025).
Garces, A. et al. Association of parity with birthweight and neonatal death in five sites: The Global Network’s Maternal Newborn Health Registry study. Reprod. Health 17, 1–8 (2020).
Shah, P. S. Parity and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 89, 862–875 (2010).
Wang, Y. A. et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight after assisted reproductive technology-related pregnancy in Australia between 1996 and 2000. Fertil. Steril. 83, 1650–1658 (2005).
Zhong, X. et al. Effect of parental physiological conditions and assisted reproductive technologies on the pregnancy and birth outcomes in infertile patients. Oncotarget 8, 18409–18416 (2016).
Rahmati, S., Azami, M., Badfar, G., Parizad, N. & Sayehmiri, K. The relationship between maternal anemia during pregnancy with preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 33, 2679–2689 (2018).
Sherwani, S. I., Khan, H. A., Ekhzaimy, A., Masood, A. & Sakharkar, M. K. Significance of HbA1C test in diagnosis and prognosis of diabetic patients. Biomark. Insights 11, BMI.S38440 (2016).
Gabbe, S. Management of diabetes mellitus complicating pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 102, 857–868 (2003).
Li, J. et al. Maternal TSH levels at first trimester and subsequent spontaneous miscarriage: a nested case–control study. Endocr. Connect. 8, 1288–1293 (2019).
Nishioka, E. et al. Relationship between maternal thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) elevation during pregnancy and low birth weight: A longitudinal study of apparently healthy urban Japanese women at very low risk. Early Hum. Dev. 91, 181–185 (2015).
Bilardo, C. M. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of 11–14-week ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 61, 127–143 (2023).
Kalousová, M., Muravská, A. & Zima, T. Pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) and preeclampsia. Adv. Clin. Chem. 63, 169–209 (2014).
Shiefa, S., Amargandhi, M., Bhupendra, J., Moulali, S. & Kristine, T. First trimester maternal serum screening using biochemical markers PAPP-A and free Β-HCG for Down syndrome, Patau syndrome and Edward syndrome. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 28, 3–12 (2012).
Salomon, L. J. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 59, 840–856 (2022).
Ogonowski, J. & Miazgowski, T. Intergenerational transmission of macrosomia in women with gestational diabetes and normal glucose tolerance. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 195, 113–116 (2015).
Yang, Y. et al. The association of gestational diabetes mellitus with fetal birth weight. J. Diabetes Complications 32, 635–642 (2018).
Ardissino, M. et al. Maternal hypertension increases risk of preeclampsia and low fetal birthweight: Genetic evidence from a Mendelian randomization study. Hypertension 79, 588–598 (2022).
Cutland, C. L. et al. Low birth weight: case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of maternal immunization safety data. Vaccine 35, 6492–6500 (2017).
Aziz, F., Khan, M. F. & Moiz, A. Gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia as the risk factors of preeclampsia. Sci. Rep. 14, 1–11 (2024).
Celik, N. Welch’s ANOVA: Heteroskedastic skew-t error terms. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 51, 3065–3076 (2022).
Mujahid, M. et al. Data oversampling and imbalanced datasets: an investigation of performance for machine learning and feature engineering. J Big Data 11, 87 (2024).
Cerda, P., Varoquaux, G. & Kégl, B. Similarity encoding for learning with dirty categorical variables. Mach. Learn. 107, 1477–1494 (2018).
Alkhawaldeh, I. M., Albalkhi, I. & Naswhan, A. J. Challenges and limitations of synthetic minority oversampling techniques in machine learning. World J. Methodol. 13, 373–378 (2023).
Abedin, M. Z., Guotai, C., Hajek, P. & Zhang, T. Combining weighted SMOTE with ensemble learning for the class-imbalanced prediction of small business credit risk. Complex Intell. Syst. 9, 3559–3579 (2022).
Kraskov, A., Stögbauer, H. & Grassberger, P. Estimating mutual information. Phys. Rev. E 69, 066138 (2004).
Shipe, M. E., Deppen, S. A., Farjah, F. & Grogan, E. L. Developing prediction models for clinical use using logistic regression: an overview. J. Thorac. Dis. 11, S574–S584 (2019).
Montomoli, J. et al. Machine learning using the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm predicts 5-day delta of SOFA score at ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. J. Intensive Med. 1, 110–116 (2021).
Jabbar, M. A., Deekshatulu, B. L. & Chandra, P. Classification of heart disease using K-nearest neighbor and genetic algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.02061 (2015).
Zheng, J. et al. Clinical data based XGBoost algorithm for infection risk prediction of patients with decompensated cirrhosis: a 10-year (2012–2021) multicenter retrospective case-control study. BMC Gastroenterol. 23, 1–13 (2023).
Loef, B. et al. Using random forest to identify longitudinal predictors of health in a 30-year cohort study. Sci. Rep. 12, 1–12 (2022).
Wallace, M. L. et al. Use and misuse of random forest variable importance metrics in medicine: demonstrations through incident stroke prediction. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 23, 1–12 (2023).
Singh, D. & Singh, B. Investigating the impact of data normalization on classification performance. Appl. Soft Comput. 97, 105524 (2019).
Kaliappan, J. et al. Impact of cross-validation on machine learning models for early detection of intrauterine fetal demise. Diagnostics (Basel) 13, 1692 (2023).
Elgeldawi, E., Sayed, A., Galal, A. R. & Zaki, A. M. Hyperparameter tuning for machine learning algorithms used for Arabic sentiment analysis. Informatics 8, 79 (2021).
Shekar, B. H. & Dagnew, G. Grid search-based hyperparameter tuning and classification of microarray cancer data. In Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Comput. Commun. Paradigms (ICACCP) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCP.2019.8882943
Chadaga, K. et al. Explainable artificial intelligence approaches for COVID-19 prognosis prediction using clinical markers. Sci. Rep. 14, 1–14 (2024).
Tougui, I., Jilbab, A. & Mhamdi, J. E. Impact of the choice of cross-validation techniques on the results of machine learning-based diagnostic applications. Healthc. Inform. Res. 27, 189–199 (2021).
Rodríguez-Pérez, R. & Bajorath, J. Interpretation of machine learning models using shapley values: application to compound potency and multi-target activity predictions. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 34, 1013–1026 (2020).
Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).
Abdullakutty, F. et al. Histopathology in focus: a review on explainable multi-modal approaches for breast cancer diagnosis. Front. Med. 11, 1450103 (2024).
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Pratap Singh, R., Suman, R. & Rab, S. Significance of machine learning in healthcare: Features, pillars and applications. Int. J. Intell. Netw. 3, 58–73 (2022).
Arain, Z., Iliodromiti, S., Slabaugh, G., David, A. L. & Chowdhury, T. T. Machine learning and disease prediction in obstetrics. Curr. Res. Physiol. 6, 100099 (2023).
Alzubaidi, M. et al. Ensemble transfer learning for fetal head analysis: From segmentation to gestational age and weight prediction. Diagnostics 12, 2229 (2022).
Hughes, M. M., Black, R. E. & Katz, J. 2500-g low birth weight cutoff: history and implications for future research and policy. Matern. Child Health J. 21, 283 (2016).
Zeegers, B. et al. Birthweight charts customised for maternal height optimises the classification of small and large-for-gestational age newborns. Acta Paediatr. https://doi.org/10.1111/APA.17332 (2024).
Teoh, Z.H., Mariapun, J., Ko, V.S.Y., Dominic, N.A., Jeganathan, R., Karalasingam, S.D. & Thirunavuk Arasoo, V.J. Maternal height, and ethnicity and birth weight: A retrospective cohort study of uncomplicated term vaginal deliveries in Malaysia. Birth. 51, 620–628 (2024).
Sutan, R., Mohtar, M., Mahat, A. N. & Tamil, A. M. Determinant of low birth weight infants: a matched case control study. Open J. Prev. Med. 4, 91–99 (2014).
To, W. W. K., Cheung, W. & Kwok, J. S. Y. Paternal height and weight as determinants of birth weight in a Chinese population. Am. J. Perinatol. 15, 545–548 (1998).
Pölzlberger, E., Hartmann, B., Hafner, E., Stümpflein, I. & Kirchengast, S. Maternal height and pre-pregnancy weight status are associated with fetal growth patterns and newborn size. J. Biosoc. Sci. 49, 392–407 (2017).
Ay, L. et al. Maternal anthropometrics are associated with fetal size in different periods of pregnancy and at birth: the Generation R Study. BJOG 116, 953–963 (2009).
Mathai, M. et al. Ethnicity and fetal growth in Fiji. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 44, 318–321 (2004).
Figueras, F. et al. Customized birthweight standards for a Spanish population. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 136, 20–24 (2008).
Britto, R. P. D. A. et al. Influence of maternal height and weight on low birth weight: a cross-sectional study in poor communities of northeastern Brazil. PLoS ONE 8, e000000 (2013).
Mongelli, M., Figueras, F., Francis, A. & Gardosi, J. A customised birthweight centile calculator developed for an Australian population. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 47, 128–131 (2007).
McCowan, L., Stewart, A. W., Francis, A. & Gardosi, J. A customised birthweight centile calculator developed for a New Zealand population. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 44, 428–431 (2004).
Zhang, G. et al. Assessing the causal relationship of maternal height on birth size and gestational age at birth: a Mendelian randomization analysis. PLoS Med. 12, e100000 (2015).
Kaur, S. et al. Risk factors for low birth weight among rural and urban Malaysian women. BMC Public Health 19, 539 (2019).
Inoue, S. et al. Association between short maternal height and low birth weight: a hospital-based study in Japan. J. Korean Med. Sci. 31, 353–359 (2016).
Retnakaran, R. et al. Association of timing of weight gain in pregnancy with infant birth weight. JAMA Pediatr. 172, 136–142 (2018).
Mohapatra, I., Harshini, N., Samantaray, S. R. & Naik, G. Association between early pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain in relation to neonatal birth weight. Cureus 14, e23000 (2022).
Arora, P. & Tamber Aeri, B. Gestational weight gain among healthy pregnant women from Asia in comparison with Institute of Medicine (IOM) Guidelines-2009: a systematic review. J. Pregnancy 2019, 3849596 (2019).
Hackmon, R. et al. Do early fetal measurements and nuchal translucency correlate with term birth weight?. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 39, 750–756 (2017).
Jackson, M. & Rose, N. C. Diagnosis and management of fetal nuchal translucency. Semin. Roentgenol. 33, 333–338 (1998).
Kalem, Z., Kaya, A. E., Bakırarar, B. & Kalem, M. N. Fetal nuchal translucency: is there an association with birthweight and neonatal wellbeing?. Turk. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 16, 35–40 (2019).
Napolitano, R. et al. Pregnancy dating by fetal crown–rump length: a systematic review of charts. BJOG 121, 556–565 (2014).
Fries, N. et al. The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21, 1–8 (2021).
Salomon, L. J. Early fetal growth: concepts and pitfalls. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 35, 385–389 (2010).
Papageorghiou, A. T. et al. International standards for early fetal size and pregnancy dating based on ultrasound measurement of crown–rump length in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 44, 641 (2014).
Kozuki, N. et al. The associations of parity and maternal age with small-for-gestational-age, preterm, and neonatal and infant mortality: A meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 13(Suppl 3), S2 (2013).
Hinkle, S. N. et al. The association between parity and birthweight in a longitudinal consecutive pregnancy cohort. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 28, 106 (2013).
Krulewitch, C. J., Herman, A. A., Yu, K. F. & Johnson, Y. R. Does changing paternity contribute to the risk of intrauterine growth retardation?. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 11, 41–47 (1997).
Luo, Z. C. et al. The effects and mechanisms of primiparity on the risk of pre-eclampsia: a systematic review. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 21, 36–45 (2007).
Sørnes, T. & Bakke, T. Uterine size, parity and umbilical cord length. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 68, 439–441 (1989).
Clapp, J. F. & Capeless, E. Cardiovascular function before, during, and after the first and subsequent pregnancies. Am. J. Cardiol. 80, 1469–1473 (1997).
Dasa, T. T., Okunlola, M. A. & Dessie, Y. Effect of grand multiparity on the adverse birth outcome: a hospital-based prospective cohort study in Sidama Region, Ethiopia. Int. J. Womens Health 14, 363 (2022).
Lin, L., Lu, C., Chen, W., Li, C. & Guo, V. Y. Parity and the risks of adverse birth outcomes: a retrospective study among Chinese. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21, 1–11 (2021).
Baer, R. J., Lyell, D. J., Norton, M. E., Currier, R. J. & Jelliffe-Pawlowski, L. L. First trimester pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A and birth weight. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 198, 1–6 (2016).
Turrado Sánchez, E. M., De Miguel Sánchez, V. & Macía Cortiñas, M. Correlation between PAPP-A levels determined during the first trimester and birth weight at full-term. Reprod. Sci. 30, 3235 (2023).
Zhao, D. et al. Association between maternal blood glucose levels during pregnancy and birth outcomes: a birth cohort study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20, 2102 (2023).
Everett, T. R. & Lees, C. C. Beyond the placental bed: placental and systemic determinants of the uterine artery Doppler waveform. Placenta 33, 893–901 (2012).
Liu, Y. et al. Impact of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia on low birthweight and small-for-gestational-age infants in China: a large prospective cohort study. J. Clin. Hypertens. 23, 835 (2021).
Gibbs, C. M., Wendt, A., Peters, S. & Hogue, C. J. The impact of early age at first childbirth on maternal and infant health. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 26, 259–284 (2012).
Markovitz, B. P., Cook, R., Flick, L. H. & Leet, T. L. Socioeconomic factors and adolescent pregnancy outcomes: distinctions between neonatal and post-neonatal deaths?. BMC Public Health 5, 279 (2005).
Sharma, V. et al. Young maternal age and the risk of neonatal mortality in rural Nepal. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 162, 828–835 (2008).
Alam, N. Teenage motherhood and infant mortality in Bangladesh: maternal age-dependent effect of parity one. J. Biosoc. Sci. 32, 229–236 (2000).
Restrepo-Méndez, M. C. et al. Childbearing during adolescence and offspring mortality: findings from three population-based cohorts in southern Brazil. BMC Public Health 11, 781 (2011).
Paranjothy, S., Broughton, H., Adappa, R. & Fone, D. Teenage pregnancy: who suffers?. Arch. Dis. Child. 94, 239–245 (2009).
Lawlor, D. A., Mortensen, L. & Andersen, A. M. N. Mechanisms underlying the associations of maternal age with adverse perinatal outcomes: a sibling study of 264,695 Danish women and their firstborn offspring. Int. J. Epidemiol. 40, 1205–1214 (2011).
Fall, C. H. D. et al. Association between maternal age at childbirth and child and adult outcomes in the offspring: a prospective study in five low-income and middle-income countries (COHORTS collaboration). Lancet Glob. Health 3, e366–e377 (2015).
Alves, C., Jenkins, S. M. & Rapp, A. Early pregnancy loss (spontaneous abortion) (StatPearls, 2023).
Jackson, T. & Watkins, E. Early pregnancy loss. J. Am. Acad. Physician Assist. 34, 22–27 (2021).
Nicolaides, K. H. A model for a new pyramid of prenatal care based on the 11 to 13 weeks’ assessment. Prenat. Diagn. 31, 3–6 (2011).
Bekele, W. T. Machine learning algorithms for predicting low birth weight in Ethiopia. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 22, 1–16 (2022).
Arayeshgari, M., Najafi-Ghobadi, S., Tarhsaz, H., Parami, S. & Tapak, L. Machine learning-based classifiers for the prediction of low birth weight. Healthc. Inform. Res. 29, 54 (2023).
Pollob, S. M. A. I., Abedin, M. M., Islam, M. T., Islam, M. M. & Maniruzzaman, M. Predicting risks of low birth weight in Bangladesh with machine learning. PLoS ONE 17, e000000 (2022).
Khan, W. et al. Infant birth weight estimation and low birth weight classification in United Arab Emirates using machine learning algorithms. Sci. Rep. 12, 1–12 (2022).
Hussain, Z. & Borah, M. D. Birth weight prediction of newborn baby with application of machine learning techniques on features of mother. J. Stat. Manag. Syst. 23, 1079–1091 (2020).
Alabbad, D. A. et al. Birthweight range prediction and classification: a machine learning-based sustainable approach. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr. 6, 770–788 (2024).
Dola, S. S. & Valderrama, C. E. Exploring parental factors influencing low birth weight on the 2022 CDC natality dataset. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 24, 367 (2024).
Liu, Q. et al. Machine learning approaches for predicting fetal macrosomia at different stages of pregnancy: a retrospective study in China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 25, 1–10 (2025).
Citizen Service AI Market: Transforming Public Sector Services with Intelligent Technology
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into public sector services has emerged as a powerful force for driving government innovation, improving operational efficiency, and delivering citizen-centric services. Governments around the world are increasingly embracing Citizen Service AI solutions to modernize how they engage with constituents. This market is not only evolving rapidly in scale but also in sophistication, with applications ranging from chatbots and virtual assistants to predictive analytics and facial recognition for public safety.
According to a recent analysis by Persistence Market Research, the global Citizen Service AI market is set for exponential growth, rising from a value of US$ 9.1 billion in 2023 to US$ 81.3 billion by 2030, representing an impressive CAGR of 36.7% over the forecast period. This surge reflects governments’ increasing need to provide efficient, transparent, and responsive services to an increasingly digital population.
Understanding Citizen Service AI: Market Introduction and Definition
Citizen Service AI refers to the application of AI-driven technologies to streamline and enhance public services provided by government institutions. It involves the use of intelligent tools such as machine learning, natural language processing (NLP), chatbots, image processing, and facial recognition to automate, personalize, and optimize interactions between citizens and public service departments.
By deploying AI-powered systems, governments aim to reduce administrative burdens, minimize bureaucratic inefficiencies, and deliver services in real-time. Whether it’s applying for permits, accessing healthcare information, reporting public grievances, or receiving traffic updates, Citizen Service AI ensures a seamless and user-friendly experience.
Key Drivers Accelerating Market Growth
1. Demand for Enhanced Citizen Engagement and Satisfaction
One of the primary growth drivers for the Citizen Service AI market is the need to improve citizen engagement and satisfaction. Citizens today expect services that are fast, responsive, and personalized. AI enables governments to deliver services that are proactive rather than reactive, empowering citizens to engage with agencies through intuitive digital interfaces.
For instance, AI-driven virtual assistants can handle thousands of queries simultaneously, 24/7, providing consistent and accurate responses. This not only reduces wait times but also ensures better access to information, particularly during emergencies or high-demand periods.
2. Rising Government Investments in Digital Transformation
Many national and regional governments are prioritizing digital transformation initiatives. These strategies aim to modernize public administration, increase transparency, and optimize service delivery through cutting-edge technologies. The allocation of public funds to AI-driven projects—including smart city initiatives and AI-enhanced public health systems—is contributing significantly to market expansion.
3. Efficiency Gains and Cost Savings
Another major advantage of Citizen Service AI is its ability to streamline government operations. By automating routine tasks such as form processing, appointment scheduling, and data entry, agencies can significantly cut down on operational costs while reallocating human resources to more complex, high-impact functions.
Machine learning algorithms also support data-driven decision-making, enabling governments to identify emerging needs, forecast public service demand, and allocate resources more effectively.
What Are the Most Promising Applications of AI in Government Services?
AI is being applied across various segments of public administration. Key use cases include:
• Traffic and Transportation Management: AI helps optimize traffic flow, manage congestion, and enhance public transit systems through real-time data.
• Healthcare: From predictive modeling to chatbot-based symptom checkers, AI is transforming how citizens access and receive medical care.
• Public Safety: Facial recognition, surveillance analytics, and emergency response systems use AI to improve security and reduce response times.
• Utilities and General Services: AI-driven monitoring systems support efficient resource usage and environmental conservation.
How is AI transforming public service delivery in government sectors?
AI is revolutionizing public service delivery by making government operations more efficient, responsive, and citizen-centric. Through AI-powered chatbots, virtual assistants, and predictive analytics, public agencies can automate routine interactions, deliver 24/7 support, and proactively address citizen needs. This not only reduces wait times and operational costs but also enhances user satisfaction. Moreover, AI enables personalized communication, better resource allocation, and smarter policy decisions—ultimately fostering trust, transparency, and inclusiveness in governance.
Barriers to Growth: Data Privacy and the Digital Divide
Despite its advantages, the Citizen Service AI market faces notable challenges that must be addressed to ensure sustainable growth.
1. Data Privacy and Security Concerns
The increased use of AI in public services necessitates the collection and processing of vast amounts of citizen data. This raises concerns regarding data misuse, unauthorized access, and potential privacy breaches. Governments must implement robust cybersecurity protocols and ethical AI frameworks to protect sensitive data and maintain public trust.
2. Digital Accessibility and Equity
While AI can streamline access to services, it can also exacerbate existing inequalities if certain populations—such as the elderly, low-income groups, or rural residents—lack access to digital devices or internet connectivity. Bridging the digital divide through education, infrastructure development, and inclusive design is essential for ensuring equitable benefits from AI-enabled governance.
Market Opportunities: Data-Driven Governance and Smart Cities
The potential for AI to improve cost-effectiveness and public service efficacy presents a compelling opportunity for market players. By leveraging real-time data, governments can adopt predictive analytics to anticipate citizen needs, respond to crises swiftly, and formulate policies based on behavioral trends.
Smart city initiatives further bolster this potential, as governments integrate AI into transportation networks, utilities, and emergency services. From traffic light automation to waste management, these applications are transforming urban governance into a smarter, greener, and more responsive ecosystem.
Analyst Perspective: Strategic Growth and Public-Private Collaboration
The Citizen Service AI market is in a phase of transformative expansion, powered by a clear recognition among governments and enterprises of AI’s game-changing capabilities. The future of this market lies in close collaboration between public sector bodies and technology providers.
Leading AI solution providers like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, IBM, and Google are aligning their technologies to address the unique challenges of public governance. These collaborations not only ensure technological innovation but also create tailored, scalable solutions that address localized needs.
However, to fully harness the potential of AI, stakeholders must address ethical considerations and implement robust regulatory frameworks. This includes establishing transparency in AI decision-making, ensuring data accountability, and promoting digital literacy.
Competitive Landscape: Key Players and Innovation Leaders
Several major technology companies dominate the Citizen Service AI market. These include:
• IBM: Through its Watson AI platform, IBM delivers predictive analytics and personalized citizen engagement tools.
• Microsoft Azure: Offers comprehensive AI solutions for government departments through cloud-based cognitive services.
• Amazon Web Services (AWS): Powers AI applications with scalable infrastructure; notable partnership with the Canadian government on the Citizen Care Pod for public health.
• Google Cloud: Known for natural language processing and conversational AI tools that enhance public communication.
Other emerging and established players include NVIDIA, Accenture, Pegasystems, Tencent, ServiceNow, and Intel Corporation—each contributing to the AI-powered transformation of public services through research, innovation, and strategic alliances.
Regional Insights: Market Leaders and Emerging Regions
• North America leads the adoption of Citizen Service AI, driven by digital transformation in the U.S. and Canada.
• Europe follows closely, with smart governance initiatives in countries like the UK, Germany, and the Nordics.
• Asia-Pacific, particularly China and Singapore, is witnessing rapid growth due to government-backed smart city programs.
• Latin America, Middle East & Africa are emerging markets with significant potential, supported by increasing digitization and AI readiness.
Conclusion: A Future Shaped by AI-Enabled Governance
The Citizen Service AI market represents a groundbreaking shift in how governments interact with and serve their citizens. From reducing administrative overhead to offering personalized, real-time support, AI has the potential to redefine public service delivery on a global scale.
With the market projected to grow at a staggering 36.7% CAGR from 2023 to 2030, reaching US$ 81.3 billion, the opportunities are vast. However, for this promise to be fully realized, it is essential that governments and technology providers collaborate to ensure secure, ethical, and inclusive deployment.
The next decade will likely witness a transformation where AI not only makes governance smarter but also more humane, responsive, and aligned with the evolving needs of the public it serves.
Explore the Latest Trending “Exclusive Article” @
• https://www.openpr.com/news/4071447/citizen-service-ai-market-to-reach-us-81-3-bn-by-2030-fueled
Better benchmarks can unlock the social benefits of AI technology.
The rhythm of artificial intelligence (AI) development has become unsettlingly familiar. A new model is unveiled, and with it comes a predictable flurry of media attention. One cluster of articles dissects its intricate training data and architecture; another marvels, often breathlessly, at its newfound capabilities; and a third, almost inevitably, scrutinizes its performance on a battery of standardized tests. These benchmarks have become our primary yardsticks for AI progress. Yet, they predominantly paint a picture skewed toward raw technical prowess and potential peril, leaving the public with a pervasive feeling that each impressive step forward for AI might translate into two regrettable steps back for the rest of us.
Many of these evaluations concentrate on the technical capacity of the model or its computational horsepower. Others, with growing urgency, assess the likelihood of misuse—could this advanced AI empower rogue actors to design a bioweapon or destabilize critical infrastructure through sophisticated cyberattacks? A significant portion of evaluations also measures AI against human performance in specific job tasks, fueling widespread anxieties about automation and diminished human agency. The reporting on these tests, frequently framed by alarming headlines, understandably casts AI advancements more as a societal regression than a leap forward. The very branding of prominent benchmarks, such as the ominously titled Humanity’s Last Exam, amplifies these negative connotations. That benchmark and others like it tend to measure a model’s capacity to complete bespoke tests, aid bad actors engaging in harmful conduct, or some combination of the two. It is difficult, if not impossible, to read coverage of such an assessment and come away with a hopeful, or even neutral, view of AI’s trajectory.
This is not to argue that assessing risks or understanding the deep mechanics of AI is unimportant. Vigilance and technical scrutiny are crucial components of responsible development. The current benchmarking landscape, however, is dangerously imbalanced. Those of us who recognize AI’s immense transformative potential to address some of the world’s most intractable problems—including revolutionizing medical diagnostics, accelerating climate solutions, and personalizing education for every child—currently lack a prominent, public-facing benchmark designed to track, celebrate, and encourage these positive developments.
It is time we introduce “Humanity’s Best Exam”—a benchmark that strives to capture a model’s capacity to address public policy problems and otherwise serve the general welfare.
Imagine a new form of evaluation that challenges AI systems not with abstract logic puzzles but with tangible goals vital to human flourishing. Consider a benchmark that tasks AI models with identifying early-stage diabetic retinopathy from retinal scans with over 95 percent accuracy, a leap that could surpass current screening efficacy and save millions from preventable blindness. Picture a test that spurs the design of three novel antibiotic compounds that are effective against stubborn, drug-resistant bacteria within a single year. In the realm of climate science, Humanity’s Best Exam might push AI to develop a groundbreaking, cost-effective catalyst for the direct air capture of carbon dioxide, improving efficiency by a significant margin—say, 20 percent—over existing technologies. Or it could encourage the creation of predictive models for localized flash floods that offer vulnerable regions a critical six-hour lead time with 90 percent accuracy. Or, in education, the challenge could be to generate personalized six-month learning plans for diverse student profiles in foundational STEM subjects, demonstrably elevating learning outcomes by an average of two grade levels.
The creation and widespread adoption of Humanity’s Best Exam would serve several critical, society-shaping purposes.
First, it would powerfully harness the intense competitive spirit of AI laboratories for the global good. AI developers are profoundly motivated by benchmark performance—the race to the top of the leaderboards is fierce. Channeling this potent drive toward solving clearly defined societal problems could positively redirect research priorities and resource allocation within these influential organizations.
Second, such a benchmark would be instrumental in reshaping the public discourse surrounding artificial intelligence. The narrative around any powerful new technology is inevitably shaped by the information that is most readily available and most prominently featured. If the most visible AI assessments continue to highlight dangers and disruptions, public perception will remain tinged with fear and skepticism. Humanity’s Best Exam would provide a steady stream of positive, concrete examples of AI’s potential, offering a more balanced and hopeful counter-narrative. This perspective is essential for fostering a more informed and constructive public conversation, which is, in turn, vital for democratic oversight of this transformative technology.
Finally, a benchmark focused on positive societal impact would provide invaluable guidance for policymakers, investors, and researchers. As a law professor whose research centers on accelerating AI innovation through thoughtful legal and policy reforms, I see a pressing need for clearer signals to guide governance away from reactive, fear-driven legislation and toward proactive, enabling frameworks. Humanity’s Best Exam would illuminate areas where AI is poised to deliver significant societal returns, helping policymakers to direct strategic funding more effectively and to develop supportive, rather than stifling, regulatory environments. Investors would gain a clearer view of emerging opportunities where AI can create substantial financial and social value. Researchers across numerous disciplines could more easily identify how cutting-edge AI capabilities can be leveraged within their fields, potentially sparking new collaborations and accelerating vital research.
But who would build and oversee such an ambitious undertaking, and how could we navigate the inherent challenges? The establishment of Humanity’s Best Exam would necessitate a dedicated, independent, and broadly representative multi-stakeholder governing consortium. This body should ideally include experts from leading academic institutions, established nonprofits with proven experience in managing “grand challenges”—akin to the XPrize Foundation model that involves hosting competitions to achieve societally beneficial breakthroughs—relevant international organizations, domain specialists from fields such as public health, environmental science, and education, as well as ethicists and, critically, representatives from civil society organizations to ensure public accountability. Funding could be drawn from a diverse portfolio, including major philanthropic sources, government grants earmarked for scientific and societal advancement, and perhaps even a coalition of AI laboratories and technology firms committed to socially beneficial AI development.
To address the valid concern that defining “societal benefit” can be subjective, a primary task for this consortium would be to establish a transparent and evolving framework for identifying and prioritizing challenge areas, perhaps drawing inspiration from established global agendas such as the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. The specific tasks within the benchmark would need to be rigorously defined, objectively measurable, and, crucially, regularly updated by diverse expert panels. This dynamism is key to preventing the benchmark from becoming stale, to avoiding the pitfalls of “teaching to the test” in a way that stifles genuine innovation, and to ensuring continued relevance as AI capabilities and societal needs evolve. Although no benchmark can ever be entirely immune to attempts at superficial optimization, focusing on complex, real-world problems with multifaceted success criteria makes simplistic gaming far more difficult than it is on narrower, purely technical tests. Furthermore, a portion of the assessment could incorporate qualitative reviews by expert panels, evaluating the robustness, safety, ethical considerations, and real-world applicability of the proposed AI tools.
The current, almost myopic focus on AI’s potential downsides, although born of a necessary caution, is inadvertently creating an innovation ecosystem shrouded in anxiety. We are meticulously documenting every conceivable way AI could go wrong, while failing to champion, encourage, and measure systematically its profound potential to go spectacularly right.
It is time to correct this imbalance. A crucial first step would be for leading philanthropic organizations, forward-thinking academic consortia, and ethically minded AI developers to convene a foundational summit. The purpose of such a gathering would be to begin outlining the charter, initial problem sets, and robust governance structure for Humanity’s Best Exam. This is far more than a mere intellectual exercise; it is a necessary reorientation of our collective focus and a deliberate effort to harness the awesome power of artificial intelligence for the betterment of all. Let us not only brace for AI’s potential last exam but actively architect its very best.
-
Mergers & Acquisitions1 week agoAmazon weighs further investment in Anthropic to deepen AI alliance
-
Brand Stories2 weeks ago
Voice AI Startup ElevenLabs Plans to Add Hubs Around the World
-
Mergers & Acquisitions1 week ago
How Elon Musk’s rogue Grok chatbot became a cautionary AI tale
-
Asia Travel Pulse2 weeks ago
Looking For Adventure In Asia? Here Are 7 Epic Destinations You Need To Experience At Least Once – Zee News
-
Mergers & Acquisitions1 week ago
UK crime agency arrests 4 people over cyber attacks on retailers
-
AI in Travel2 weeks ago
‘Will AI take my job?’ A trip to a Beijing fortune-telling bar to see what lies ahead | China
-
Mergers & Acquisitions1 week ago
EU pushes ahead with AI code of practice
-
Mergers & Acquisitions2 weeks ago
ChatGPT — the last of the great romantics
-
Mergers & Acquisitions1 week ago
Humans must remain at the heart of the AI story
-
The Travel Revolution of Our Era1 month ago
CheQin.ai Redefines Hotel Booking with Zero-Commission Model
You must be logged in to post a comment Login