Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32348266›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Prediction of Preeclampsia and Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Development of Machine Learning Models on a Prospective Cohort.

Herdiantri Sufriyana, Yu-Wei Wu, Emily Chia-Yu Su

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. AI in Childbirth and Emerging Alternatives to Traditional Fertility Treatments.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026
    Review
  5. AI in Childbirth and Emerging Alternatives to Traditional Fertility Treatments.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Herdiantri SufriyanaGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9178-0222
Yu-Wei WuGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5603-1194
Emily Chia-Yu SuGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4801-5159
Taipei Medical University Hospital · TWTaipei Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction are placental dysfunction-related disorders (PDDs) that require a referral decision be made within a certain time period. An appropriate prediction model should be developed for these diseases. However, previous models did not demonstrate robust performances and/or they were developed from datasets with highly imbalanced classes.

objectiveIn this study, we developed a predictive model of PDDs by machine learning that uses features at 24-37 weeks' gestation, including maternal characteristics, uterine artery (UtA) Doppler measures, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor-1 (sFlt-1), and placental growth factor (PlGF).

methodsA public dataset was taken from a prospective cohort study that included pregnant women with PDDs (66/95, 69%) and a control group (29/95, 31%). Preliminary selection of features was based on a statistical analysis using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute). We used Weka (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis) 3.8.3 (The University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ) to automatically select the best model using its optimization algorithm. We also manually selected the best of 23 white-box models. Models, including those from recent studies, were also compared by interval estimation of evaluation metrics. We used the Matthew correlation coefficient (MCC) as the main metric. It is not overoptimistic to evaluate the performance of a prediction model developed from a dataset with a class imbalance. Repeated 10-fold cross-validation was applied.

resultsThe classification via regression model was chosen as the best model. Our model had a robust MCC (.93, 95% CI .87-1.00, vs .64, 95% CI .57-.71) and specificity (100%, 95% CI 100-100, vs 90%, 95% CI 90-90) compared to each metric of the best models from recent studies. The sensitivity of this model was not inferior (95%, 95% CI 91-100, vs 100%, 95% CI 92-100). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was also competitive (0.970, 95% CI 0.966-0.974, vs 0.987, 95% CI 0.980-0.994). Features in the best model were maternal weight, BMI, pulsatility index of the UtA, sFlt-1, and PlGF. The most important feature was the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio. This model used an M5P algorithm consisting of a decision tree and four linear models with different thresholds. Our study was also better than the best ones among recent studies in terms of the class balance and the size of the case class (66/95, 69%, vs 27/239, 11.3%).

conclusionsOur model had a robust predictive performance. It was also developed to deal with the problem of a class imbalance. In the context of clinical management, this model may improve maternal mortality and neonatal morbidity and reduce health care costs.

Indexed as

intrauterine growth restrictionmachine learningpreeclampsiasFlt-1/PlGF ratiouterine artery Doppler

Identifiers

PMID32348266
PMCPMC7265111
OpenAlexW3022078172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.