Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104120›Full record

ArticleLupus science & medicine2022

Adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: can we improve predictions with machine learning?

Melissa J Fazzari, Marta M Guerra, Jane Salmon, Mimi Y Kim

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Application of Machine Learning Models in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  16. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Melissa J FazzariEpidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA melissa.fazzari@einsteinmed.org.ORCID 0000-0002-5674-3589
Marta M GuerraRheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Jane Salmon *Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Mimi Y Kim *Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine · USHospital for Special Surgery · US

Funding

Adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with systemic lupus erythematosus: improving and validating risk predictionR21AR076612 · NIAMS · HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY · PI KIM, MIMI Y, SALMON, JANE E · 2020 to 2021
$435k
NIAMS NIH HHS R21 AR076612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesNearly 20% of pregnancies in patients with SLE result in an adverse pregnancy outcome (APO). We previously developed an APO prediction model using logistic regression and data from Predictors of pRegnancy Outcome: bioMarkers In Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PROMISSE), a large multicentre study of pregnant women with mild/moderate SLE and/or antiphospholipid antibodies. Our goal was to determine whether machine learning (ML) approaches improve APO prediction and identify other risk factors.

methodsThe PROMISSE data included 41 predictors from 385 subjects; 18.4% had APO (preterm delivery due to placental insufficiency/pre-eclampsia, fetal/neonatal death, fetal growth restriction). Logistic regression with stepwise selection (LR-S), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), random forest (RF), neural network (NN), support vector machines (SVM-RBF), gradient boosting (GB) and SuperLearner (SL) were compared by cross-validated area under the ROC curve (AUC) and calibration.

resultsPreviously identified APO risk factors, antihypertensive medication use, low platelets, SLE disease activity and lupus anticoagulant (LAC), were confirmed as important with each algorithm. LASSO additionally revealed potential interactions between LAC and anticardiolipin IgG, among others. SL performed the best (AUC=0.78), but was statistically indistinguishable from LASSO, SVM-RBF and RF (AUC=0.77 for all). LR-S, NN and GB had worse AUC (0.71-0.74) and calibration scores.

conclusionsWe predicted APO with reasonable accuracy using variables routinely assessed prior to the 12th week of pregnancy. LASSO and some ML methods performed better than a standard logistic regression approach. Substantial improvement in APO prediction will likely be realised, not with increasingly complex algorithms but by the discovery of new biomarkers and APO risk factors.

Indexed as

Antiphospholipid SyndromeLupus Erythematosus, SystemicPregnancy ComplicationsBiomarkersFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLupus Coagulation InhibitorMachine LearningPlacentaPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeBiomarkersLupus Coagulation Inhibitorepidemiologylupus nephritisoutcome assessment, health care

Identifiers

PMID36104120
PMCPMC9476149
OpenAlexW4295681618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.