Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35255105›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Machine learning prediction of non-attendance to postpartum glucose screening and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes.

Nishanthi Periyathambi, Durga Parkhi, Yonas Ghebremichael-Weldeselassie, Vinod Patel, Nithya Sukumar, Rahul Siddharthan, Leelavati Narlikar, Ponnusamy Saravanan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prediction Models for Maternal and Offspring Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Following Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Nishanthi PeriyathambiDivision of Populations, Evidence, and Technologies of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4423-3124
Durga ParkhiDivision of Populations, Evidence, and Technologies of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Yonas Ghebremichael-WeldeselassieDivision of Populations, Evidence, and Technologies of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Vinod PatelDepartment of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, George Eliot Hospital, Nuneaton, United Kingdom.
Nithya SukumarDivision of Populations, Evidence, and Technologies of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Rahul SiddharthanDepartment of Computational Biology, The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2233-0954
Leelavati NarlikarDepartment of Chemical Engineering, CSIR-National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6820-1878
Ponnusamy SaravananDivision of Populations, Evidence, and Technologies of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
George Eliot Hospital · GBHomi Bhabha National Institute · INNational Chemical Laboratory · INThe Open University · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N006232/1Medical Research Council MR/R020981/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the present study was to identify the factors associated with non-attendance of immediate postpartum glucose test using a machine learning algorithm following gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) pregnancy.

methodA retrospective cohort study of all GDM women (n = 607) for postpartum glucose test due between January 2016 and December 2019 at the George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, UK.

resultsSixty-five percent of women attended postpartum glucose test. Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed in 2.8% and 21.6% had persistent dysglycaemia at 6-13 weeks post-delivery. Those who did not attend postpartum glucose test seem to be younger, multiparous, obese, and continued to smoke during pregnancy. They also had higher fasting glucose at antenatal oral glucose tolerance test. Our machine learning algorithm predicted postpartum glucose non-attendance with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72. The model could achieve a sensitivity of 70% with 66% specificity at a risk score threshold of 0.46. A total of 233 (38.4%) women attended subsequent glucose test at least once within the first two years of delivery and 24% had dysglycaemia. Compared to women who attended postpartum glucose test, those who did not attend had higher conversion rate to type 2 diabetes (2.5% vs 11.4%; p = 0.005).

conclusionPostpartum screening following GDM is still poor. Women who did not attend postpartum screening appear to have higher metabolic risk and higher conversion to type 2 diabetes by two years post-delivery. Machine learning model can predict women who are unlikely to attend postpartum glucose test using simple antenatal factors. Enhanced, personalised education of these women may improve postpartum glucose screening.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Blood GlucoseFemaleGlucoseHumansMachine LearningPostpartum PeriodPregnancyRetrospective StudiesBlood GlucoseGlucose

Identifiers

PMID35255105
PMCPMC8901061
OpenAlexW4220902038

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.