Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35637547›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

A multistate competing risks framework for preconception prediction of pregnancy outcomes.

Kaitlyn Cook, Neil J Perkins, Enrique Schisterman, Sebastien Haneuse

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 92% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kaitlyn CookDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, US. kaitlyn_cook@harvardpilgrim.org.
Neil J PerkinsEpidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, US.
Enrique SchistermanDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, US.
Sebastien HaneuseDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, US.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development · USHarvard Pilgrim Health Care · USHarvard University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreconception pregnancy risk profiles-characterizing the likelihood that a pregnancy attempt results in a full-term birth, preterm birth, clinical pregnancy loss, or failure to conceive-can provide critical information during the early stages of a pregnancy attempt, when obstetricians are best positioned to intervene to improve the chances of successful conception and full-term live birth. Yet the task of constructing and validating risk assessment tools for this earlier intervention window is complicated by several statistical features: the final outcome of the pregnancy attempt is multinomial in nature, and it summarizes the results of two intermediate stages, conception and gestation, whose outcomes are subject to competing risks, measured on different time scales, and governed by different biological processes. In light of this complexity, existing pregnancy risk assessment tools largely focus on predicting a single adverse pregnancy outcome, and make these predictions at some later, post-conception time point.

methodsWe reframe the individual pregnancy attempt as a multistate model comprised of two nested multinomial prediction tasks: one corresponding to conception and the other to the subsequent outcome of that pregnancy. We discuss the estimation of this model in the presence of multiple stages of outcome missingness and then introduce an inverse-probability-weighted Hypervolume Under the Manifold statistic to validate the resulting multivariate risk scores. Finally, we use data from the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction (EAGeR) trial to illustrate how this multistate competing risks framework might be utilized in practice to construct and validate a preconception pregnancy risk assessment tool.

resultsIn the EAGeR study population, the resulting risk profiles are able to meaningfully discriminate between the four pregnancy attempt outcomes of interest and represent a significant improvement over classification by random chance.

conclusionsAs illustrated in our analysis of the EAGeR data, our proposed prediction framework expands the pregnancy risk assessment task in two key ways-by considering a broader array of pregnancy outcomes and by providing the predictions at an earlier, preconception intervention window-providing obstetricians and their patients with more information and opportunities to successfully guide pregnancy attempts.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomePremature BirthFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLive BirthPregnancyRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsCompeting risksDiscrete survival modelsMissing dataMultinomial classificationPregnancyRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID35637547
PMCPMC9150288
OpenAlexW4281739705

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.