Back

A Novel Dual Outcome Risk Score for VBAC Success and Neonatal Morbidity

Crabtree, L.; Yao, R.; Gheorghe, C. P.

2026-07-02 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.07.01.26357032 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: To develop and externally validate a simple antepartum cumulative risk score that stratifies both vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) success and neonatal morbidity among patients undergoing trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 2 stages: model development in a single tertiary care center in California (2019 to 2025) and external validation in the National Vital Statistics System natality files (2020 to 2024). The derivation cohort included 1,418 TOLAC attempts; the national validation cohort included 477,693 TOLAC attempts. A point-based score was constructed from routinely available antepartum characteristics associated with VBAC. VBAC success and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were evaluated across score levels in both cohorts, and model discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: In the derivation cohort, 1,087 of 1,418 patients (76.7%) achieved VBAC. The logistic regression model showed reasonable discrimination (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.67-0.73). VBAC success declined from 89.1% at a score of -1 to 37.8% at scores of 4 or higher, whereas NICU admission increased from 31.7 to 200.0 per 1,000. Uterine rupture occurred in 28 of 1,418 TOLAC attempts (1.97%) and was not predicted by antepartum characteristics. In the national cohort, VBAC success similarly declined from 90.5% to 44.8%, whereas NICU admission increased from 43.8 to 111.1 per 1,000 across the same score range. Conclusion: A simple antepartum risk score stratified both VBAC success and neonatal morbidity in single-center and national TOLAC cohorts, supporting its potential use in patient-centered counseling.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.9%
2
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.1%
3
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
4
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.7%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.3%
8
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
9
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.5%
10
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
11
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.2%
12
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.2%
14
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
15
Journal of Medical Economics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
16
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
17
JAMA
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
18
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
19
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
21
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
BMC Medical Education
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
23
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Human Reproduction
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
26
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.6%
27
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.6%